Why do half the people not receive the precious blood?

[twf]

By and large, the Chalice is not offered in my archdiocese (Vancouver, Canada). We must remember that receiving under both forms only adds to the SYMBOLIC value - the faithful receive Our Lord’s body, blood, soul, and divinity under either form…Christ can not be divided! When the Precious Blood is offered, my main reason to avoid receiving it is that it generally requires the use of EMHCs, which I think should be avoided at all costs unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

 

[PJM]

=edders;5183961]Thanks for your replies everyone. I don’t really understand this 3rd point - what’s the history of this? Didn’t lay folk always get to receive both through the centuries?

No,

I’m embarrased that I can’t recall the date, somewhere before the Council of Trent, I think, which was in the mid 1500’s.It was decided that their existed excessive opportunity to Profane the Divine Presence, so Holy Communion under the form of Bread alone, became the norm, as it remains today and for the very same reason.

Trent began the most rapid period of Growth in the Catholic Church, experienced in Her then 15000 year history. And this despite the HUGE numbers of catholics who left the Church to join Martin Luther.

NEVER in the 2000 year history of the RCC has laity been permitted to do what seems common place today with ORDINADRY ministers of the Eucharist. as I stated before this issue was speciffically voted down in the Vatican Council II.

Love and prayers,

 

[Phrancis]

Because doing so makes me TERRIBLY hungry.

 

[Phrancis]

…NEVER in the 2000 year history of the RCC has laity been permitted to do what seems common place today with ORDINADRY ministers of the Eucharist. as I stated before this issue was speciffically voted down in the Vatican Council II.

Love and prayers,

:nope: I suspect the first century disciples received under both kinds.

 

[benedictgal]

Maybe if we remember what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, it might help us to get a better handle on the Church’s teaching:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.

This comes from Laud Sion, the sequence many of us will either be reciting or chanting during the Mass for the Solemnity of Corpus Christi.

No one is being cheated out of receiving the whole Christ if they choose not to receive the Precious Blood. Certainly there are many (and these threads have been replete with stories) of folks who cannot receive the Body of Christ due to gluten intolerance. Surely these faithful are not “cheated” out of receiving the whole and complete Christ if they can only partake of the Precious Blood.

 

[Aramis]

Hi,

I was just wondering - I go to mass on Sunday morning, and when we go up to receive communion half the people go straight back to their seats. In two side chapels they offer the blood of Christ - I always go to receive it, but it seems many do not. Why on earth would anyone not want to participate in the full sacrament? Hygiene? Some urgent need to get back to their seat? I have to say I would feel somewhat ‘cheated’ if I went to communion and only received the Body and not the Blood also.

Your thoughts?

The Roman Church has taught for centuries that one receives the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in either species of communion alone; reception of both is a matter of reinforcing the symbolism and the reality of such.

In short, they are denying themselves only of the symbolic aspects of reception of the blood, as they have already fully communed under one species. Only the celebrant is required to commune under both species.

 

[Brendan]

No,

I’m embarrased that I can’t recall the date, somewhere before the Council of Trent, I think, which was in the mid 1500’s.It was decided that their existed excessive opportunity to Profane the Divine Presence, so Holy Communion under the form of Bread alone, became the norm, as it remains today and for the very same reason.,

It was a response to the Utraquist Heresy of the early 1400’s. That heresy stated that Communion was not fully recieved unless it was recieved with both species.

The problem is, I’ve been seeing a revival of this heresy, de jeur, if not de facto.

Too many people are ill informed in that they believe that the species are seperate substances ( One is the Body and the other is the Blood) or feel that their reception of Communion was incomplete if they did not recieve from the chalice as well.

Case in point, the OP

Why on earth would anyone not want to participate in the full sacrament? … **I would feel somewhat ‘cheated’ **if I went to communion and only received the Body and not the Blood also.

 

[Cat]

I find the taste of the wine to be quite pleasant!

That’s nice.

But everyone’s different. Do you find the taste of Peeps quite pleasant? Or pickled beets? I love these foods!

 

[Eucharisted]

I’m also a convert, too. I never did like the taste of wine. At my old Lutheran church, I always picked the grape juice if it was available. When I was 7 or 8, my mom let me taste 1 drop of champange - I was curious as to how it tasted (it was after my parent’s anniversary - probably their 15th wedding anniversary), and I hated it.

The Lord, in His Mercy, was thinking of people who dislike wine and who cannot eat bread when He instituted the Holy Eucharist. Indeed, even the preparation for the sacrament before His birth He made so in such a manner that it benefited all people. For He dose all things for men, as a serving example for how we ought to do all things for Him.

 

[Augie1530]

If the priest is diabetic or a recovering alcololic is grape juice permitted ?

 

[Brendan]

If the priest is diabetic or a recovering alcololic is grape juice permitted ?

There is a very low alcohol type wine called mustum that may be used. Basically, it is grape that has been allowed to fermet for only a short period before fermentation is stopped.

 

[edders]

So are people saying I’m essentially doing the same thing twice by receiving both?

 

[japhy]

So are people saying I’m essentially doing the same thing twice by receiving both?

You’re making a single sacramental act of Communion although it is manifested in two distinct signs (the sign of bread and the sign of wine). You are doing more than a person who receives only one species (insofar as receiving the Host and then the Chalice constitutes two physical acts), but you’re not getting more.

 

[jannekb]

I’m a recovering alcoholic and I have not had a sip of alcohol in over seven years, so personally, that’s why I don’t receive the precious blood.

 

[edders]

You’re making a single sacramental act of Communion although it is manifested in two distinct signs (the sign of bread and the sign of wine). You are doing more than a person who receives only one species (insofar as receiving the Host and then the Chalice constitutes two physical acts), but you’re not getting more.

Ok, thanks, this has settled the issue for me. I think I will continue to receive both because I personally find the experience more completely engaging.

 

[Brendan]

So are people saying I’m essentially doing the same thing twice by receiving both?

Yes,

Christ is whole and complete, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in each species.

The only, and I repeat, only, difference between the contents of the ciborium and the contents of the chalice is how the Substance of Christ appears to our human senses.

And, as Japhy noted, you are simply accomplishing the same single Sacramental act using two physical actions instead of one.

One does not, in fact, cannot, recieve twice as much ‘God’ by recieving two species. Nor are you recieving any extra Graces, since in a single species you are reciving Grace Himself. There can be no more Grace that Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. If you have already recieved that, there can be nothing greater.

If it benefits your experience to recieve in two actions, that’s perfectly fine, but to consider such a reception to be anything greater over a single species than sign value alone is a condemned heresy.

 

[forever_always]

Hi,

I was just wondering - I go to mass on Sunday morning, and when we go up to receive communion half the people go straight back to their seats. In two side chapels they offer the blood of Christ - I always go to receive it, but it seems many do not. Why on earth would anyone not want to participate in the full sacrament? Hygiene? Some urgent need to get back to their seat? I have to say I would feel somewhat ‘cheated’ if I went to communion and only received the Body and not the Blood also.

Your thoughts?

You do not need to recieve both the body and the blood (in form of bread and wine) in order to recieve the full sacrament. if you just recieve the body, you are recieving the blood as well. i hope you’re able to understand that. those that do not recieve both the body and blood are still recieveing the full sacrament!

 

[GodIsGracious]

The Eucharist itself is fully the Body and Blood of Christ. One does not receive the sacrament more fully if they receive the Blood. By that same logic, when the priest has to break the Eucharist in half to make sure he has enough for everyone, those people would be receiving “less” of the sacrament. Either you receive it, or you don’t. There is no measure of how much.

Personally, I don’t anymore for a couple of reasons. 1) I’m now pregnant, and I’m a bit paranoid about germs. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a cold from the chalice, but I’d rather not chance it right now 2) For the reason stated above, it’s not necessary, 3) because I prefer to receive the sacrament from a priest or deacon, not an EMHC. I realize that sometimes they are necessary, but I think that our parish has way too many, and I’d rather receive from a priest or deacon’s consecrated hands, and 4) It generally holds up the line, because the EMHC’s with the Blood take longer than the priest w/ the Eucharist. I live in Dallas, and our Bishop stopped the distribution of the Precious Blood for a week or two while the Swine Flu dies down, and I’ve noticed Communion has gone much smoother. I would actually rather they keep it that way. (Personal preference only, I know many people who love to have the option)

JennyZ, do you mind if I ask what parish you attend? I’ve started to attend St. Thomas Aquinas. One thing I love about St. Thomas is the communion rail.

My boyfriend, who is Byzantine, attended Mass with me this past Sunday. After Mass he said, “I didn’t realize Latin Rite allowed women deacons.” I was confused. I asked him where he got that idea.

It was because of the female EMHC who distributed communion we had at Mass. I told him that we have EMHCs, which help with communion distribution during Mass. He said, “That’s what Deacons are for.” I said, “Well, ok. But we have lay people who get to distribute communion.”

I went on to say that I don’t care for that, infact, I can’t stand it. And that, honestly, why are people in such a rush to leave Mass that they simply cannot wait for the priest to distribute communion to everyone.

It’s annoying. I can’t stand it. The one bitty thing I am grateful for, and I hope this holds out, is that we’re not holding hands during the “Our Father” due to the H1N1 flu scare.

If you don’t want to mention where you attend, I’m cool with that. Or message me privately.

 

[Jenny_Z]

JennyZ, do you mind if I ask what parish you attend? I’ve started to attend St. Thomas Aquinas. One thing I love about St. Thomas is the communion rail.

My boyfriend, who is Byzantine, attended Mass with me this past Sunday. After Mass he said, “I didn’t realize Latin Rite allowed women deacons.” I was confused. I asked him where he got that idea.

It was because of the female EMHC who distributed communion we had at Mass. I told him that we have EMHCs, which help with communion distribution during Mass. He said, “That’s what Deacons are for.” I said, “Well, ok. But we have lay people who get to distribute communion.”

I went on to say that I don’t care for that, infact, I can’t stand it. And that, honestly, why are people in such a rush to leave Mass that they simply cannot wait for the priest to distribute communion to everyone.

It’s annoying. I can’t stand it. The one bitty thing I am grateful for, and I hope this holds out, is that we’re not holding hands during the “Our Father” due to the H1N1 flu scare.

If you don’t want to mention where you attend, I’m cool with that. Or message me privately.

I’ve been going to St. Joe’s in Richardson for a few years now, but I’ve actually gone to St. Thomas for about a month or so because it’s so much more traditional and reverent. I actually didn’t notice that there were EMHC’s till last week… I’ve been lucky enough to get in with the priest or deacon everytime At least St. Thomas only has 2 EMHC’s though… St. Joe’s regularly has 6-8

 

[GodIsGracious]

I’ve been going to St. Joe’s in Richardson for a few years now, but I’ve actually gone to St. Thomas for about a month or so because it’s so much more traditional and reverent. I actually didn’t notice that there were EMHC’s till last week… I’ve been lucky enough to get in with the priest or deacon everytime At least St. Thomas only has 2 EMHC’s though… St. Joe’s regularly has 6-8

Wow! That’s A LOT. Is that church big?

I’ve noticed, depending on how large the Mass is, they can have about 4 EMHCs. oi. Yesterday was the first I had an EMHC administer communion to me while at St. Thomas.

I don’t mind ushers, but when they usher you away from receiving from the priest, well, that’s annoying.

BTW, in my adult confirmation class this past Sunday a woman was talking to the instructor. Her comment, “A communion rail! Who KNEW?!? I need to sell my house in Kansas and move down here!”

This leads me to believe that I wonder just how many people crave “old school” Mass and churches.