Tridentine Liturgy and the Precious Blood

[Walking_Home]

Hello,

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!

---

Did you catch this particular statement.

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

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

This is the biggest problem with the traditionalist movement–any development at all is decried even though the Church has been developing under the animating power of her soul, the Holy Spirit, since the beginning. The organism is essentially killed. When St. Pius X lowered the age for receiving Communion, saying that the higher age was based on errors and that it led to errors, were people up in arms? Did they think everything before was perfect and therefore the Pope’s decision was a pernicious novelty? What about when the Chalice was originally denied the people? What was the reaction? What about when the Nicene Creed was changed an the Filioque was added? What about when Gregory XIII changed the calendar and moved Easter? What about when Pius XII changed the order for Holy Week?

It seems to me Catholics were just fine with all those developments and the only people who got up in arms about them (in the cases where anyone actually did get upset) they ended up being schismatics or heretics like the Greeks or the Protestants.

Or how about when the Western Church started to use unleavened bread for the Eucharist instead of leavened as is the custom in the East? Priestly celibacy, getting rid of the lay roll of deaconess, etc. etc. I could go on and add more to the list but I don’t feel like writing a book. I find a lot of problems with the so-called traditionalist movement today and for someone who has the effort and the time it would be easy to squash the traditionalist movement in just a few chapters.

What if some should go further and say that nothing good happened in the Western Church since Pope Gregory the Great reformed the liturgy then?

 

[BobP123]

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.

Agreed.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

That is why intinction is a wonderful solution.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Did you catch this particular statement.

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

Yes, I did. That is what I mean. They were not legally bound to receive it, but were not forbidden.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

The way a general conception follows a good just rubs me the wrong way. To say that to want to receive Jesus in the Precious Blood is to have sympathies for a heterodox lay priesthood, is just as wrong then to say that to want to enjoy and celebrate the Liturgy as done by our fathers since time memorial (Tridentine Mass) is to have sympathies for a radical ultra-Traditionalist anti-Papal holier-and-more-Catholic-than-the-Pope mentality and culture.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

What if some should go further and say that nothing good happened in the Western Church since Pope Gregory the Great reformed the liturgy then?

They’d probably join the Orthodox Church.

 

[BobP123]

Or how about when the Western Church started to use unleavened bread for the Eucharist instead of leavened as is the custom in the East? Priestly celibacy, getting rid of the lay roll of deaconess, etc. etc. I could go on and add more to the list but I don’t feel like writing a book. I find a lot of problems with the so-called traditionalist movement today and for someone who has the effort and the time it would be easy to squash the traditionalist movement in just a few chapters.

You want to nuke us, perhaps?

 

[Walking_Home]

Hello,

uote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Did you catch this particular statement.

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

Yes, I did. That is what I mean. They were not legally bound to receive it, but were not forbidden.

---

Did you get the full meaning of the statement. Not only are we not legally bound to receive the from the Chalice—but we the laity have no divine right to the Chalice or to demand it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Did you get the full meaning of the statement. Not only are we not legally bound to receive the from the Chalice—but we the laity have no divine right to the Chalice or to demand it.

That is not the meaning I got at all. A little late it says: “that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species” That seems to me that the meaning of “of divine right” is the same as this “by divine precept”. It seems to indicate that they are not bound by law to partake, though the celebrating clergy is. The celebrating clergy, by divine precept, must partake of both of the Sacred Species for the sacrifice to be complete and thus the Mass to be valid. But the laity and non-celebrating clergy are not bound to receive both (or either). There lack of communing doesn’t invalidate the Mass.

Do you have any commentaries on the Council that support your idea that the laity have no right or privilege to the Chalice?

 

[Walking_Home]

Hello,

That is not the meaning I got at all. A little late it says: “that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species” That seems to me that the meaning of “of divine right” is the same as this “by divine precept”. It seems to indicate that they are not bound by law to partake, though the celebrating clergy is. The celebrating clergy, by divine precept, must partake of both of the Sacred Species for the sacrifice to be complete and thus the Mass to be valid. But the laity and non-celebrating clergy are not bound to receive both (or either). There lack of communing doesn’t invalidate the Mass.

Do you have any commentaries on the Council that support your idea that the laity have no right or privilege to the Chalice?

---

Why can the Church withdraw the Chalice. She would not be able to withdraw it–if it was a “divine right” that we the laity receive it.

 

[Joysong]

Walking Home,

You did not answer the question, “Do you have any commentaries on the Council that support your idea that the laity have no right or privilege to the Chalice?”

Why can the Church withdraw the Chalice. She would not be able to withdraw it–if it was a “divine right” that we the laity receive it.

The Church, as Catholics believe, has Divine Authority over the sacred liturgy, and Her power comes from “Whatsoever you shall bind one earth, shall be bound in heaven.” If the Church in her wisdom is guided by the Spirit to withdraw or to permit the reception of the Precious Blood, we obey Her directives. You are free to disagree with Church teaching, but it is wrong to teach this to others as though She is doctrinally in error.

In Her wisdom, the Church presently bestows the option to receive or not receive as the communicant prefers. The solemn teaching is that reception of both species is NOT necessary, but is permitted if the priest wishes to offer it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking Home,

You did not answer the question, “Do you have any commentaries on the Council that support your idea that the laity have no right or privilege to the Chalice?”

The Church, as Catholics believe, has Divine Authority over the sacred liturgy, and Her power comes from “Whatsoever you shall bind one earth, shall be bound in heaven.” If the Church in her wisdom is guided by the Spirit to withdraw or to permit the reception of the Precious Blood, we obey Her directives. You are free to disagree with Church teaching, but it is wrong to teach this to others as though She is doctrinally in error.

In Her wisdom, the Church presently bestows the option to receive or not receive as the communicant prefers. The solemn teaching is that reception of both species is NOT necessary, but is permitted if the priest wishes to offer it.

---

True to form Joysong–how you manipulate what people say. Where in this thread have I disagreed with Church teaching and stated the Church is doctrinally in error.

 

[BobP123]

Walking Home,

The Church, as Catholics believe, has Divine Authority over the sacred liturgy, and Her power comes from “Whatsoever you shall bind one earth, shall be bound in heaven.” If the Church in her wisdom is guided by the Spirit to withdraw or to permit the reception of the Precious Blood, we obey Her directives. You are free to disagree with Church teaching, but it is wrong to teach this to others as though She is doctrinally in error.

In Her wisdom, the Church presently bestows the option to receive or not receive as the communicant prefers. The solemn teaching is that reception of both species is NOT necessary, but is permitted if the priest wishes to offer it.

You need to be more specific here. Who exactly is “The Church” that has such “Divine Authority”? As an example, you and I are part of this Church too, aren’t we? I don’t feel I have divine anything except when I receive under either species at Communion time.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The way a general conception follows a good just rubs me the wrong way. To say that to want to receive Jesus in the Precious Blood is to have sympathies for a heterodox lay priesthood, is just as wrong then to say that to want to enjoy and celebrate the Liturgy as done by our fathers since time memorial (Tridentine Mass) is to have sympathies for a radical ultra-Traditionalist anti-Papal holier-and-more-Catholic-than-the-Pope mentality and culture.

It is associated with that. Just as a love for the Tridentine rite is associated with obedience to the magisterium of the Church on contraception. I am sure you can find a traditionalist couple somewhere who contracept, but most don’t. And to be fair, traditionalism is also associated with more negative things like a rejection of Vatican II.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

And to be fair, traditionalism is also associated with more negative things like a rejection of Vatican II.

Exactly! That is my point. Many view that if one has a love for the Tridentine Mass or traditional Catholic culture and values, then automatically they are disobedient schismatics who reject Vatican II, deny we have a valid Pope, assert that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, etc. This is just not true - and this is the assumption that irritates me. One can have a love of traditional Catholicism and be a completely faithful Catholic (as is evident by the many who are so on this forum). Likewise, one can have a love for the Precious Blood and desire to receive it and not be a heterodox believer in some Protestant notion of a sole priesthood of the laity, and other non-Catholic beliefs.

 

[BobP123]

Hello,
Likewise, one can have a love for the Precious Blood and desire to receive it and not be a heterodox believer in some Protestant notion of a sole priesthood of the laity, and other non-Catholic beliefs.

Hey, here’s one for you. Suppose after you receive the “cup” you get yourself into a car accident. Can you (or the church) be sued for drunk driving? Just a thought.

 

[Joysong]

Walking Home:

Where in this thread have I disagreed with Church teaching and stated the Church is doctrinally in error.

When you answer the question from JMJ_Coder, which is related to yours above, then I think you will clarify what it is you are really saying, for you have implied more than once to Coder that we are not permitted.
Walking Home to JMJ_Coder:

Did you get the full meaning of the statement. Not only are we not legally bound to receive the from the Chalice—but we the laity have no divine right to the Chalice or to demand it.

The question again is:

“Do you have any commentaries on the Council that support your idea that the laity have no right or privilege to the Chalice?”

Thanks.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Hey, here’s one for you. Suppose after you receive the “cup” you get yourself into a car accident. Can you (or the church) be sued for drunk driving? Just a thought.

I don’t know about you, but I have never met anyone who was impaired after Communion. You have a sip, you’re not guzzling down a whole bottle.

 

[BobP123]

Hello,

I don’t know about you, but I have never met anyone who was impaired after Communion. You have a sip, you’re not guzzling down a whole bottle.

I wouldn’t know. I don’t drink early in the morning.