Why do half the people not receive the precious blood?

[Jenny_Z]

Jenny Z;5193759:

I could understand the rush because your pregnant, but what about before, and waht about after the baby is born. By the way congratulations.

Peace,
FAB

Before: no, for the other reasons I stated. And afterward, probably not, for the reasons I’ve stated, and also because I’ll have a baby to carry.

And thanks!

 

[Jenny_Z]

Reason to recieve under both species:

Sure, those are good reasons to receive, but it’s not an obligation, which was my original point.

I never said the Precious Blood was worthless (God forbid), or that no one should receive it. Just that I don’t, and it doesn’t mean I’m receiving any less of the Eucharist than you are.

 

[diggerdomer]

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?

Huh? I was only offering my opinion to the question about why half the people don’t receive the precious blood. I wasn’t saying anything about your being in or out of the Church. Wow…sorry if you thought anything other than that I was responding to the quesiton in the subject line.

 

[diggerdomer]

I

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

That is a faulty argument and I completely disagree with the conclusion. Nowhere does the Church use that line of reasoning.

By that logic, why should the laity receive communion at all? I mean, if EMHCs can’t purify any vessel (it’s not only chalices that are part of this legislation), the reception under either species must not be that important.

Reception of both species ranks the same in the Church as it did before the indult, during the indult, and since the indult expired.

 

[japhy]

By that logic, why should the laity receive communion at all? I mean, if EMHCs can’t purify any vessel (it’s not only chalices that are part of this legislation), the reception under either species must not be that important.

The sacred vessels which are placed in the tabernacle do not need to be purified. That means that is conceivable that Communion distributed under the species of bread alone need not add to the number of vessels which require purification: only the celebrant’s paten and chalice would need purification. This process takes two minutes at most.

When you offer the Precious Blood (in a vessel other than the priest’s chalice), you necessitate purification of another vessel; not so with Communion under bread alone.

 

[diggerdomer]

The sacred vessels which are placed in the tabernacle do not need to be purified. That means that is conceivable that Communion distributed under the species of bread alone need not add to the number of vessels which require purification: only the celebrant’s paten and chalice would need purification. This process takes two minutes at most.

When you offer the Precious Blood (in a vessel other than the priest’s chalice), you necessitate purification of another vessel; not so with Communion under bread alone.

Yes, of course. I just typically see more than one vessel used to distribute the bread/hosts. But not all those vessels go into the Tabernacle and so they have to be purified.

 

[Brendan]

That is a faulty argument and I completely disagree with the conclusion. Nowhere does the Church use that line of reasoning.

Read the link above.

Cardinal Arinze clearly stated that if the vessels necessary to offer both species are too numerous of the authorized ministers to clean, then Communion should be offered in a single species only.

If, as FAB indicated, that the reception of both species is so important of a sign, if it is so important of a sign of Christ’s command to “eat and drink”, then it would clearly warrant the continuation of the indult to allow EMHC’s to purify the vessels. But Pope Benedict himself ruled that it does not rise to that level. That it is more important to the spirituality of the Church to cut out dual reception than to allow EMCH’s to rise and wipe the chalice.

By that logic, why should the laity receive communion at all? I mean, if EMHCs can’t purify any vessel (it’s not only chalices that are part of this legislation), the reception under either species must not be that important.

The case that the US bishops presented to His Holiness rested on the supposed need for EMHC’s to assist the priest with purification was due to the large number of vessels required for dual reception. +Benedict said if that was the case, to simply stop offering both species. He did not say to stop it all together.

He certainly could extented the indult, but when weighing the two solutions, he gave greater weight to one than the other. So it thus that is how we too should view the relative importance of the two choices.

So if a choice arises where the decision must be made between having an EHMC purify a vessel and the faithful recieving both species, Pope Benedict stated which way the bishops (and thus the priests) must choose.

Reception of both species ranks the same in the Church as it did before the indult, during the indult, and since the indult expired.

Exactly,as being lower in importance as EMHCs being allowed to purify

 

[Aramis]

On the case of Fuller Signs… I think the following is an example of a Full-enough sign and a fuller sign

[sign1]ML King Blvd & 4th Ave[/sign1]
[sign]Martin Luther King Boulevard and 4th Avenue[/sign]

Nothing wrong with the first one; it tells you where you’re at just fine. Downtown Anchorage, overlooking the Train Yards.

The second has more symbolic meaning, but still tells you exactly where you’re at with the same precision as the first.

The Grace granted by the Eucharist is where you are at.

The symbolic truth made easier to grasp is the name on the sign. The second is easier to read, but not as fast.

 

[Brendan]

I do aplogies for some imprecision in my above posts.

When I mentioned EMHC’s I was specifically refering to those who assist in the distribution of the Eucharist but who are not Installed Acolytes or ordained Sub-Deacons.

Those men, of course, are EMHC’s and may also purify the sacred vessels.

 

[Brendan]

The symbolic truth made easier to grasp is the name on the sign. The second is easier to read, but not as fast.

Yes, but in either case, the sign only has value of you are not aware of where you are at, or are unsure.

Both exist to either lead someone to the corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and 4th who is not already there, or to inform someone who IS there, but is unsure of exactly where they are at.

For someone who at the signified corner and IS sure that the corner they are at is the correct one, there is no need to look for the sign, either the full one, or the full-er one.

 

[diggerdomer]

I do aplogies for some imprecision in my above posts.

When I mentioned EMHC’s I was specifically refering to those who assist in the distribution of the Eucharist but who are not Installed Acolytes or ordained Sub-Deacons.

Those men, of course, are EMHC’s and may also purify the sacred vessels.

I don’t believe anyone in the Roman Rite is ordained as sub-deacon any longer. Or were you referring to another Rite?

 

[diggerdomer]

Read the link above.

I did. Nowhere does anyone say that “who does the dishes” is more important than the sacrificial meal and what’s “served” at the sacrificial meal.

The reason for not extending the indult has to do with the ordained priesthood and the nature of the sacred vessels; it has nothing to do with the actual reception of Communion during Mass. I can’t seriously believe you’re equating with or elevating over the purification of the sacred vessels with the reception of Communion.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t believe anyone in the Roman Rite is ordained as sub-deacon any longer. Or were you referring to another Rite?

The FFSP and ICRS both do so.
The majority of the Eastern Rite Churches also retain the order of subdeacons.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t believe anyone in the Roman Rite is ordained as sub-deacon any longer. Or were you referring to another Rite?

The FSSP has permission to ordain Sub-Deacons, and of course the other Rites do so regularly.

Our OF parish has a Chaldean Sub-Deacon, he is our one and only EMHC

 

[Brendan]

I did. Nowhere does anyone say that “who does the dishes” is more important than the sacrificial meal and what’s “served” at the sacrificial meal.

The reason for not extending the indult has to do with the ordained priesthood and the nature of the sacred vessels; it has nothing to do with the actual reception of Communion during Mass. I can’t seriously believe you’re equating with or elevating over the purification of the sacred vessels with the reception of Communion.

No, I simply stated the reason that the Bishops requested that the indult be extended. They said it was because of the number of vessels needed for both species was often too much for the priest to handle alone.

The Vatican’s response was not to say that if the number of vessels involved in the offering of both species was too many for a single priest, then don’t give out both species

And the purification of the vessels is entrusted to Instituted Acolytes “by virute of their office”, so it is clearly not restricted to priesthood by nature, rather it falls under the province of a lay role, that of Acolyte.

 

[pmoo]

In my diocese, some churches only offer the body of Christ, but mine still offers both. However, our Bishop recently put out a letter that with the concerns of Swine Flu, they were temporarily discontinuing the use of the precious blood during the eucharist. However, it just doesn’t feel the same when I only take the body of Christ. I miss the cup and am hoping they start offering both again.

I remember in my RCIA classes a woman brought up her concerns of catching a cold or other germs from the cup. I believe the blood is safe, but it is true there could be something on the cup. However, I receive it while many others pass it by.

I think many just are worried about germs from the rim of the cup. I’m actually more worried about germs from shaking hands with everyone. Thus, as soon as we finish the Lord’s Prayer and holding/shaking hands, I get out my hand sanitizer. I also run a bit of it over my mouth so I feel clean when receive the host.

 

[onetruechurch]

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.

:bigyikes:

I have also noticed that the cloth that is used for “wiping” is not rotated properly. The wiped germs are put back onto the chalice.

I don’t drink from the cup for the sake of others. For many years I would get two cold sores a year. I never would know the exact moment that I would be contagious because when they appear it could be suddenly. I consider it to be very sinful if I would drink from the cup and expose someone to the cold sore even if at the moment I drank I was unaware that I had reached the contagious stage. I hope than anyone else who has ever had a cold sore would also not drink from the cup.
When I pass by the precious blood on my way back to my seat I always give a bow to the chalice. That is my way of saying, “Jesus, I know you are there and I spiritually unite myself to you.”

 

[michaeldaniels]

But it isn’t a more complete experience…You are getting the complete experience with either The Body or The Precious Blood…Who could be worried about symbolism when you are consuming The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Host alone?..why would you want or even desire more…especially when there is nothing more you can receive?

Personally I like taking both, because it does feel like a more ‘complete’ experience, and after all, food and drink go hand in hand so there is a symbolic value to it. I find the taste of the wine to be quite pleasant!

 

[peary]

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?

Because BOTH the bread and wine contain the FULLNESS of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. As such, it is not necessary to receive both although it is encouraged. It has always been an option.

 

[mcmitton]

The area in our sanctuary for the priest and the ministers is small and crowded. I simply cannot consume and swallow the Precious Body before I arrive in front of the Precious Blood. There are communicants jammed up behind me.

I just cannot put the Body inside my mouth unconsumed and take the Blood. That seems disrespectful to me … not to mention unmannerly. Thus, I make a reverent bow before the Blood and continue on to my seat, still consuming the Body.