Why do half the people not receive the precious blood?

[Jenny_Z]

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

Yeah, St. Joe’s is pretty big… there’s usually 4 masses on Sunday, and 1 on Saturday evening. They really do need EMHC’s, I just think it’s a bit overdone. They could use another priest, only 2 priests for a parish that size must be alot of stress on them

 

[wolfgang]

Yeah, St. Joe’s is pretty big… there’s usually 4 masses on Sunday, and 1 on Saturday evening. They really do need EMHC’s, I just think it’s a bit overdone. They could use another priest, only 2 priests for a parish that size must be alot of stress on them

Not to get off topic - but, I took a look at St. Joseph’s. Very nice.

:angel1:

 

[Brendan]

Yeah, St. Joe’s is pretty big… there’s usually 4 masses on Sunday, and 1 on Saturday evening. They really do need EMHC’s, I just think it’s a bit overdone. They could use another priest, only 2 priests for a parish that size must be alot of stress on them

To both priests assist in the distribution of Communion. If so, that sets a great example of Christian service.

That’s what happens at our parish. We have 2 Saturday evening Masses and 4 Sunday Masses. About 900 families with about 600-700 at the Sunday am Masses.

Our parish has a pastor, an assoicate and 1 86 year old senior priest in residence. All three distribute the Eucharist at each Mass.

And with the help of our Deacon and a Chaldean Sub-Deacon who attends our parish, they are the only ministers used.

So that is a total of 1 EMHC and even he is a cleric.

 

[Jenny_Z]

Actually, they only do 1 priest per mass… the priests split the masses in half We have a deacon, but he’s only there every now and then, mainly on the big feast days.

 

[Galnextdoor]

I don’t drink out of the chalice for two reasons;

1. I’m allergic to wine

and

1. They did a study of chalices that had been wiped clean in St. Louis. They discovered bacteria/ viruses for staph, Strep throat, mono, common cold, herpes and the flu. They said that the typical chalice had at least 4 types of bacteria/viruses. I can do without all that stuff.

 

[diggerdomer]

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?

inadequate catechesis

 

[Brendan]

Actually, they only do 1 priest per mass… the priests split the masses in half We have a deacon, but he’s only there every now and then, mainly on the big feast days.

Different priests say different Masses. But during the “Our Father” the two priests who are not saying Mass will come out (in albs and stoles) to help distribute Holy Communion.

 

[edders]

inadequate catechesis

Pfft, it was just a question. Now I know the answer. You’d prefer it if I remained outside the Church until I got all these nuances straight?

 

[redrosetea]

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?

Probably because they don’t want to drink after everyone else…The host is enough…Why do you care what other people do?

 

[weepixie71]

there are many reasons on may choose to not receive the Consecrated Wine.

1. this is fairly new. before vat II wine was not distributed and so some stick with that tradition.
2. one may be an alcoholic
3. some people may have an allergy to wine.
4. hygiene-there is not enough alcohol in the wine to kill germs of the many people taking a sip of the chalice.
5. this is my reason why i do not receive the wine—it is very easy to spill. i would be devastated if i dropped Christ on the floor. nor will i take the host in my hands because the host can leave residue.

im sure there are more reasons but these are the common ones i have heard.

 

[elizebeth123]

I am an alcoholic. Even though it’s the precious blood of Christ, it still retains alcohol which could kill me. It breaks my heart not to partake, but thank goodness no one judges me for not.

 

[japhy]

Even though it’s the precious blood of Christ, it still retains alcohol which could kill me.

Just to clarify so delicate an issue, the Precious Blood retains the accidents (appearances and characteristics) of alcohol, but it itself is not alcohol.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Just to clarify so delicate an issue, the Precious Blood retains the accidents (appearances and characteristics) of alcohol, but it itself is not alcohol.

To further clarify: *the accidents (appearances and characteristics) of alcohol *are likely to remain just as detrimental to someone who needs avoid alcohol as the substance of alcohol itself.

tee

 

[Jenny_Z]

Recieving communion is not an indivdual act, it is the act of community. We go as one body to recieve this gift, and in our recieving we are called to embody all that being one in Christ implies. Love, caring, service, justice, sacrafice for each other.
A priest cannot celebrate the sacrafic of the Eucharist by himself because it is not an individual act.
By saying that I’m going to recieve only from the preist and to do so I will possition my self to do so, to me is putting that individual desire above the call for community.

 

[Brendan]

JAP,

Yes, there is no doubt that recieving under both species is a fuller sign.

But what, exactly does the Church mean when it calls something a “sign”

Aquinas referred to a sign as an element that points towards a greater reality than itself.

We see this ourselves in everyday signs.

For example, when we look on a pole at a sign that says “Main St.”, the sign clearly isn’t a street, but rather it points towards\identifies a greater reality, Main St.

The reception of both species points towards a greater reality, the Eucharistic Banquet of Heaven.

But when then, is the PURPOSE of a sign. Well in the case of the sign for Main St. it lets us know that we have arrived at, or are on, Main St. In other words, it removes doubt.

The sign of both species removes doubt about the nature of the Eucharistic Banquet, that we Eternally recieves the Body Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

But the sign has little value where there is no doubt. If I am sure I am on Main St. I have no need to check for signs. In fact, constantly checking for Main St. signs when I have no doubt that I am ON Main St. is a distraction from my travels along Main St.

Likewise, if I am sure that my personal reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is a participation in the Eucharistic Banquet, if I have no doubt about it’s nature, then I have no need of fuller signs.

I have already recieved the greater reality to which the sign points.

 

[FAB]

JAP,

Yes, there is no doubt that recieving under both species is a fuller sign.

But what, exactly does the Church mean when it calls something a “sign”

Aquinas referred to a sign as an element that points towards a greater reality than itself.

We see this ourselves in everyday signs.

For example, when we look on a pole at a sign that says “Main St.”, the sign clearly isn’t a street, but rather it points towards\identifies a greater reality, Main St.

The reception of both species points towards a greater reality, the Eucharistic Banquet of Heaven.

But when then, is the PURPOSE of a sign. Well in the case of the sign for Main St. it lets us know that we have arrived at, or are on, Main St. In other words, it removes doubt.

The sign of both species removes doubt about the nature of the Eucharistic Banquet, that we Eternally recieves the Body Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

But the sign has little value where there is no doubt. If I am sure I am on Main St. I have no need to check for signs. In fact, constantly checking for Main St. signs when I have no doubt that I am ON Main St. is a distraction from my travels along Main St.

Likewise, if I am sure that my personal reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is a participation in the Eucharistic Banquet, if I have no doubt about it’s nature, then I have no need of fuller signs.

I have already recieved the greater reality to which the sign points.

I’m not certain of your point. We are a church of “signs”, which allow our sacraments to have a fuller meaning and understanding. Are you saying that you know Jesus so well, that an additional sign of his love for you is not needed. That may be fine for you, but many others need addtional sign, that gift that He shed for us. Personally I think we should accept that gift happily and humbly, but that’s just me.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Brendan]

I’m not certain of your point. We are a church of “signs”, which allow our sacraments to have a fuller meaning and understanding. Are you saying that you know Jesus so well, that an additional sign of his love for you is not needed. That may be fine for you, but many others need addtional sign, that gift that He shed for us. Personally I think we should accept that gift happily and humbly, but that’s just me.
Peace,
FAB

Are you so in doubt of Christ’s Love that you need additional signs?

The gift He offers, the Blood He shed, is complete in a single crumb of a single species, there is no more to ask for, for what more could there be that the Divine Son of God before us?.

If you do not doubt that, what need do we have of more signs? You logic sounds to be more in line with the Jews who followed Jesus, not for who He was, but because of the signs He brought.

But those signs, again, only point TOWARDS Christ. After the Apostles recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, what signs did they seek? They provided signs, yes, but they sought none themselves.

The Church likewise provides signs to teach the catecumens, but for those who have placed their trust in Christ and His Church, signs are not needed.

After all, signs exist only to remove doubt of the nature of what they point to. After that, once it has been achieved, it serves no purpose.

Am I sure that Christ Loves me, of course. Do I doubt that in any way? Do I know that the Blood He shed for me is full and complete within the Host the priest holds before me, Yes I do.

Therefore, why do I need a sign of it?

 

[Brendan]

Reason to recieve under both species:

I will also refer you to the letter from Cardinal Arinze to the US Bishops informing them of Pope Benedict’s decision on EMHC’s purfiing the sacred.

The GIRM states the only Ordained Ministers and Instituted Acolytes may purify the sacred vessels.

The US obtained an indult for EMHC’s to do that. The indult was for 3 years. At the end of the 3 years, the US bishops sought an extention. Their main claim was that the extensive use of offering both species in the US necessitated EMHC’s cleaning the vessels used.

The Vatican said no. That the number of vessels used had to be of a number that the correct ministers could purify them. If not, was no possible, then either a single species was to be offered or intinction used.

Basically, the reception of both species is not important enough to the Church to allow EMHC’s to rinse and dry the chalice afterward.

So we can pretty much see where the reception of both species ranks on the Church’s list of important items

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/cleansingofvessels.pdf

 

[benedictgal]

Reason to recieve under both species:

Please cite your source. Is it the Holy See or the USCCB that you are quoting? Incidentally, at the Papal Masses that I have seen on TV, the Precious Blood is not being distributed. Of course, there are tens of thousands of faithful in attendance.

Now, you stress the argument of the fuller sign. Are you not aware, however, that RS makes certain stipulations regarding just when and how the Precious Blood should be administered? The document notes that:

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

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

Thus, with all things, parameters are given by the Holy See as to how it should be done. At our diocesan liturgies (especially the Chrism Mass), we do not have EMHCs distributing Holy Communion since there are plenty of Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to go around. Both species are distributed, but, these are always done by the OMHCs, not EMHCs.

 

[Brendan]

Fab,

I am not discounting the value of signs. I’ve need signs at points in my life where I was unsure, and God provided them.

Peter need a sign before he came to faith, and God provided it in a cock’s crow. Thomas needed a sign, a Christ provided that too with His nail marks, and side.

But we are called to move beyond the signs to the reality they represent. Peter did not need another rooster, and Thomas did not need any more nails marks.

They provided the pointer on where they needed to be. The example of the Apostles is one we should all follow, to not rely on the signs but to seek to move past them.

So if that is where you are at, needing a fuller sign, there is no shame in it, but remember what the Church considers a sign to be, a pointer towards where we are supposed to go, not the goal itself.

Your desire then, should be to move to such an understanding that the sign becomes unecessary. Such an understanding of the nature of the Eucharist is certainly in the realm of temporal human understanding, as the Church practiced that for centuries and even now, the sign value of both species is a simple option.