Who consumes the left over wine?

[JuanMilton]

EMs who have the wine are expected to drink it at masses I have been at, if not a sacristan can do it, or other parishes have the priests drink it after mass.

It is forbidden to reserve “excess” Precious Blood until after Mass.

The Precious Blood maybe reserved under very specific circumstances for the ill, but this does not apply.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Everyone doing that is incurring “a latae sententiae excommunication”;

That is incorrect.

 

[JuanMilton]

All these stories of all leftover precious Blood are a strong indication that these parishes should not be offering Communion under both species.

Redemptionis Sacramentum states clearly:

Nope.

It depends on the quantity. Each of our chalices usually have a tiny sip left…

 

[JuanMilton]

At our parish, it is common for EMHC’s to add water to leftover Precious Blood, and pour it down the sacrarium (drain that leads directly to the earth).

I do not believe this is appropriate and will do some more research through the USCCB website to get the facts. Any data you have will help.

Thanks!

What you describe is a HORRID practice!

The first water (or wine) used to purify the vessels must be consumed by humans. Subsequent rinsings may be poured down the sacrarium – or even the sink.

 

[JuanMilton]

I would suggest people to stop being picky and trying to correct people when the refer to the consecrated specie as the wine and tell them that it is the precious blood…

Referring to the Precious Blood as “wine” is just wrong. And no, it’s not a harmless thing. It coarsens and cheapens the entire atmosphere surrounding the Mass. It’s not a matter of being picky – it’s a matter of reigning-in *crude *behavior.

Stack-up enough of these pernicious colloquialisms and they really begin to have an effect – a terribly deleterious effect on the Mass as celebrated.

 

[Sure]

Nope.

It depends on the quantity. Each of our chalices usually have a tiny sip left…

Sips are fine. I was referring to the people speaking of cups of Precious Blood needing to be consumed…so much that multiple people be involved lest someone become intoxicated.

I still don’t see why Precious Blood is offered when it requires EMHC’s. It would seem to be preferable to offer one species and not use EMHC’s…or offer 2 species with ordinary ministers.

 

[japhy]

That is incorrect.

How so? Are they protected by ignorance and because they’re not doing in maliciously?

 

[rskempf]

Thanks to everyone for clarifying the procedures for handling the Precious Blood. What you have provided is enough for me to proceed to the next step, which is to contact our pastor.

I will remain hopeful for a positive outcome but just wanted to list a few “abuses” so you can see what I am up against and why it is important for me to remain hopeful at this early stage.

1. Our parish uses a precious metal chalice and four glass vessels for the EMHC’s to distribute with. I agree this glassware is a “no no.” The purification of the vessels is also completed by the EMHC’s, also a “no-no.”
2. We use EHMC’s even when it is not warranted. It is now a standard procedure that is implemented almost automatically whether there are 100 or 600 attendants at the Saturday and Sunday mass.
3. The Sacrament of Penance has fallen out of use.
4. Our D.R.E. is emphatically negative on John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI and states contraception is a matter of conscience. This was stated in our religious education board meeting - recently.
5. This same D.R.E. led the entire Catechist group in a chant to the god of shiva (Om Nama Shiviya) while the catechists moved in unison with steps and hand gestures - a sort of dance at our last teacher’s meeting.
6. This same D.R.E. is using a book by Joan Chitterston, The Ten Commandments, as a formation tool to read at religious education board meetings. For those not familiar, Sister Joan is a leader of dissent in our faith.
7. Our men’s prayer group, that meets weekly, is becoming progressively protestant. They use a protestant devotional now. It is not that bad but the comments made in this meeting indicate clearly that the group’s faith is very shaky. I gauge this by negative comments made toward our Church. I defend these of course but have been “labeled” as a result.

We have many serious problems. I suppose handling the Precious Blood is the most serious. Please pray for my success at being most effective in combatting these issues like a good soldiery in our Church Militant.

PS: I opened a lot of issues here. Please stay on topic with the Precious Blood if at all possible. I only provided these anecdotes to illustrate the sad state of our Church and to show the context of the most serious issue - Christ’s Precious Blood.

God bless all of you.

 

[lizaanne]

Put your list into a very well composed letter and send it to your Bishop. He needs to know what’s going on.

~Liza

 

[benedictgal]

EMs who have the wine are expected to drink it at masses I have been at, if not a sacristan can do it, or other parishes have the priests drink it after mass.

First of all, I would respectfully request that you please use the apporpriate term, Precious Blood. Second, it is the priest or deacon who consumes the excess Sacred Species. I would recommend that you review a previous post that quoted Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding the proper procedure for handling the Precious Blood.

Rskemp, per Redemptionis Sacramentum, glassware is expressly forbidden for use as a sacred vessel. When I return from my meeting, I’ll get you the exact post. Furthermore, Cardinal Arinze was very emphatic regarding the prohibition against glassware. I don’t know how to link threads, but there is a discussion regarding glassware. There are some very serious concerns that you bring up in your post. These need to be addressed to your pastor at once, since the DRE, according to your post, seems to be leading the innocent towards a downward spiral and is taking positions and doing actions that are contrary to Church teaching. If your pastor does not listen to you, then you should address these matters directly to your bishop.

 

[Phemie]

Rskemp, per Redemptionis Sacramentum, glassware is expressly forbidden for use as a sacred vessel. When I return from my meeting, I’ll get you the exact post. Furthermore, Cardinal Arinze was very emphatic regarding the prohibition against glassware. I don’t know how to link threads, but there is a discussion regarding glassware. There are some very serious concerns that you bring up in your post. These need to be addressed to your pastor at once, since the DRE, according to your post, seems to be leading the innocent towards a downward spiral and is taking positions and doing actions that are contrary to Church teaching. If your pastor does not listen to you, then you should address these matters directly to your bishop.

Redemptionis Sacramentum has been studiously ignored in some corners. At the cathedral that was our diocesan see until months ago they still use glass chalices and plates for Communion. Referring to Redemptionis… usually gets the response “We haven’t implemented that document yet.”

 

[Cristiano]

Referring to the Precious Blood as “wine” is just wrong. And no, it’s not a harmless thing. It coarsens and cheapens the entire atmosphere surrounding the Mass. It’s not a matter of being picky – it’s a matter of reigning-in *crude *behavior.

Stack-up enough of these pernicious colloquialisms and they really begin to have an effect – a terribly deleterious effect on the Mass as celebrated.

These posts are a clear example of the presumption of some posters. First we complain that we call the specie 'wine" and then we use a theologically wrong expression and we call it Precious Blood. The previous posts are proving my point.

Is it less reverent to call it wine or to accept an heretic description (IMHO) where with our simplistic language we imply that the liquid is the Precious Blood only? Why do not we refer to the “bread” as the Precious Blood too?

This pseudo-formalism is a crude behavior too if we follow your logic. However, I have not seen you correcting people when they use the term Precious Blood alone.

BTW I am not scolding people for using the term Precious Blood. I am quite sure that they believe in the True Presence.

 

[JuanMilton]

These posts are a clear example of the presumption of some posters. First we complain that we call the specie 'wine" and then we use a theologically wrong expression and we call it Precious Blood. The previous posts are proving my point.

There is nothing theologically wrong with referring to the species of the Blessed Sacrament available under the appearance of wine as the Precious Blood. It is the Precious Blood – the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Is it less reverent to call it wine or to accept an heretic description (IMHO) where with our simplistic language we imply that the liquid is the Precious Blood only? Why do not we refer to the “bread” as the Precious Blood too?

I’m not sure if you are trying to be entertaining right now but to suggest “Precious Blood” is a “heretic description” of one species of the Blessed Sacrament is not only wrong, it’s deeply offensive.

Referring to the Precious Blood as “wine” is not only ignorant, it’s terribly crude.

This pseudo-formalism is a crude behavior too if we follow your logic. However, I have not seen you correcting people when they use the term Precious Blood alone.

See above.

BTW I am not scolding people for using the term Precious Blood. I am quite sure that they believe in the True Presence.

Yet you are confused and it runs a great deal deeper than semantics.

 

[Ankabaranka_87]

Speaking of this…

I also am wondering about something that is practiced in my university’s church.

Instead of consuming the left-overs, it is taken outside and poured on the ground…their take is that we are giving it back to God…and since earth is part of God’s creation…why not?

somehow this is hard to take… is this really ok to do? or mistake on this church’s behalf?

 

[benedictgal]

There is nothing theologically wrong with referring to the species of the Blessed Sacrament available under the appearance of wine as the Precious Blood. It is the Precious Blood – the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I’m not sure if you are trying to be entertaining right now but to suggest “Precious Blood” is a “heretic description” of one species of the Blessed Sacrament is not only wrong, it’s deeply offensive.

Referring to the Precious Blood as “wine” is not only ignorant, it’s terribly crude.

See above.

Yet you are confused and it runs a great deal deeper than semantics.

Cardinal Arinze refers to the Sacred Species as the Precious Blood. Here is what he said in a Q & A session (as appeared in Adoremus):

However, I noticed in this country many people insist on receiving under two forms – that means, the form of Body of Christ and Blood of Christ. If the bishop has approved it, that’s all right. But it means it demands a lot of care because it is so easy to spill the Precious Blood.

It is so easy, and, as you mentioned earlier, in these days of disease, some people are worried if there are up to 50 people drinking from the same cup. Some people are hesitant.

Why would people not accept intinction? You [the priest] take the Body of Christ and just dip in the ***Precious Blood ***and give it to the person on the tongue. But the ministers must be priests or deacons, if they want that.

Therefore, if the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (which oversees the Church’s liturgical life) uses the term Precious Blood, it cannot be seen as heretical, or, contrary to Catholic doctrine and liturgical theology. I hope this helps.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

How so? Are they protected by ignorance and because they’re not doing in maliciously?

What you quoted refers to the Blessed Sacrament and Precious Blood. After the Host is dissolved or the Precious Blood diluted with 50% or more of water it is no longer the Blessed Sacrament. Which is what the OP described being done before it was poured down the sacrarum. Again this should only be done with a few Hosts and a small quantity of Precious Blood that cannot for some reason be consumed.

 

[Cristiano]

Therefore, if the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (which oversees the Church’s liturgical life) uses the term Precious Blood, it cannot be seen as heretical, or, contrary to Catholic doctrine and liturgical theology. I hope this helps.

You are correct. I was not implying that the use is improper or heretic in itself. My point was about contest and the Church always stresses the idea of contest. The Cardinal uses the term in a contest where it is clear what he is talking about.

However, if you assume that someone is referring to the Precious Blood in a contest where he wants to show that there is a separation between Blood and Body and that the species are not the same Glorified Body. Then the term is used to describe a heretical point even if the terminology is consistent with the one used by the Cardinal.

I have seen a few people that think that one is the Body and the other is the Blood and that they receive both in order to have a more complete communion. To those people the use of the expression Precious Blood seem to support their concept.

 

[benedictgal]

You are correct. I was not implying that the use is improper or heretic in itself. My point was about contest and the Church always stresses the idea of contest. The Cardinal uses the term in a contest where it is clear what he is talking about.

However, if you assume that someone is referring to the Precious Blood in a contest where he wants to show that there is a separation between Blood and Body and that the species are not the same Glorified Body. Then the term is used to describe a heretical point even if the terminology is consistent with the one used by the Cardinal.

I have seen a few people that think that one is the Body and the other is the Blood and that they receive both in order to have a more complete communion. To those people the use of the expression Precious Blood seem to support their concept.

Please allow me to point out the context by which Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses this issue:

1. Communion under Both Kinds
   [100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.186
   [101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188

I am fully aware of the fact that when one receives Holy Communion under the form of the Sacred Host, the communicant is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. St. Thomas Aquainas points out that even if someone were to receive a tiny fragment of the Sacred Species, he receives the whole Body of Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity).

Obviously, in Papal Masses, it is nearly impossible to receive Holy Communion under both species. But, the document is very specific in regulating how and when this can be done. I hope this helps you.

 

[Cristiano]

Please allow me to point out the context by which Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses this issue:…

I apologize because from your response I think that I have not been clear enough with my posts.

My whole argument is about the usage of words and expressions in different contexts (I apologize for the previous misspelling too). I am not debating the propriety of using the term Precious Blood in Redemptionis Sacramentum and its theological interpretation.

I am not accusing you of either improper use of the expression precious Blood or misunderstanding of the True meaning of the Eucharist.

I was making a simple point on the use of words and expressions relative to informal logic and rhetoric. (see Prof. D. Zarefky " Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning") However, I think that I lost you and another poster with my possibly confusing statements.

 

[JuanMilton]

What you quoted refers to the Blessed Sacrament and Precious Blood. After the Host is dissolved or the Precious Blood diluted with 50% or more of water it is no longer the Blessed Sacrament. Which is what the OP described being done before it was poured down the sacrarum. Again this should only be done with a few Hosts and a small quantity of Precious Blood that cannot for some reason be consumed.

This is done only for EMERGENCIES – such as when one regurgitates a consecrated Host!

Has nothing to do with a “few Hosts” or “small quantities of Precious Blood”