Why do so few Catholics drink the Precious Blood at mass?

[st_felicity]

kmktexas:

Yes, the intinction must be done by the priest or deacon (I think an EMHC can do it too) but anyone can receive this way. You cannot self-intinct - take the Host and dip it yourself into the cup. A priest can distribute Communion this way.

religious-supplies.com/browseproducts/Intinction-Set-All-Gold-Plated.HTML

AAhhh… I assumed you meant self-intinction…I never knew that a community all could receive from the hand of the priest by intiction. That would solve the backwash and dribbling problem! Would there also be a line for those that do not want to receive under both species for whatever reason?

 

[st_felicity]

There’s a woman who sits near me at mass who self-intincts every time she receives–I would think it would be the EME’s job to stop this, but it continues. What should one do in this situation? I don’t know her name, and she’s not always at the same mass I attend.

 

[Timidity]

Catholic Dude:

To the best of my knowledge I am not and would not intentionally say anything to attack the Church, I have to hidden agenda.

I never suspected you did. I did suspect that you had lazy word usage, but now I am not starting to suspect that you don’t understand concomitance.
Catholic Dude:

Did I say something bad?

You keep saying that people are taking the body without taking the blood. This is 100% impossible.

The only way it would be possible is if the stuff that used to be bread became Christ’s body and the stuff in the cup became His blood. That is not what happens. That is, indeed, an old heresy.
Catholic Dude:

I dont know what you mean, do you agree with taking both?

Taking both what? Body & Blood? As I said above, it is impossible to take one without taking the other, so how could I disagree with it?

Or do you mean with both species? I personally partake of both, but it’s not necessary.

 

[Timidity]

kmktexas:

Yes, the intinction must be done by the priest or deacon (I think an EMHC can do it too) but anyone can receive this way.

One of the beautiful things about intiction is that you need only 1/2 as many servers as you do when offering under both species using other methods. This mean you don’t need as many EMHCs! But wait! There’s more! You don’t need as many distribution points, making traffic flow better too!



I’m a very big fan of intinction.

 

[CanonAlberic]

Personally, I don’t like drinking out of the same cup as other people have (germs, etc.). By the same token, I’ve never liked the “Peace Be With Ya” handshake thing (I don’t know where these people’s hands have been!)… I remember the good old days when this wasn’t done in church.
On a more secular and worldy note, most churches seem to use wine that tastes like that stuff that comes out of a 5 litre box!

"Negotium Perambulans in Tenebris"

 

[kmktexas]

Timidity:

One of the beautiful things about intiction is that you need only 1/2 as many servers as you do when offering under both species using other methods. This mean you don’t need as many EMHCs! But wait! There’s more! You don’t need as many distribution points, making traffic flow better too!



I’m a very big fan of intinction.

At the daily Masses that I spoke of, this is exactly what happens. Father usually does not have a server for daily Mass (even though there is a full time deacon who stay in the office during Mass ). By using the intinction method, the faithful can receive under both species with only the priest distributing. My own parish is very small with about 100 people at a given Sunday Mass. If I could talk Father into using intinction, we wouldn’t need EMHCs at all!!

And you don’t have to suspend distributing under both kinds during flu season like some areas do with the cup.

Lots of advantages. Almost no down side.

 

[Nota_Bene]

kmktexas:

At the daily Masses that I spoke of, this is exactly what happens. Father usually does not have a server for daily Mass (even though there is a full time deacon who stay in the office during Mass ). By using the intinction method, the faithful can receive under both species with only the priest distributing. My own parish is very small with about 100 people at a given Sunday Mass. If I could talk Father into using intinction, we wouldn’t need EMHCs at all!!

And you don’t have to suspend distributing under both kinds during flu season like some areas do with the cup.

Lots of advantages. Almost no down side.

Intinction requires one to receive on their tongue. Sadly, that would drive many away from Communion…

 

[BulldogCath]

I think the entire premise , as with communion in the hand is another sacrilige commited by the Modernists and the lack of reverence they have for our Lords precious body and blood. They seem to care less about the particles of his body that fall on the floor, or the hosts that are taken home for other abuses as I have seen here on other threads-and seem to care less that drops fall on the floor, on the towel or napkin that is used to wipe away each time someone drinks-and then the napkin goes into the garbage pail.

But like everything else-it gives another old lady minister a job to do so she can go back to her nursing home and tell all how she “participates” in mass. Sad
Catholic Dude:

Here is a topic I havent seen here yet.
It is about all those people who receive the Body of Christ, but not the Blood of Christ.

I will admit, when I first came in heart and soul I didnt drink out of the Cup for “fear” of “germs”. But as I thought about it and read the Bible and stuff I came to the conclusion how much I was missing and how Jesus said to drink his Blood as well as eat.
The fear of germs was eclipsed by how powerful Communion really was. I realized how little faith I had by worrying about germs instead of concentrating on our Lord.

Also I always hear that line “If you take it under one kind it counts as both”. Whats the point? If a person has a reaction to wine then God wont hold it aginst them, but to outright deny the Cup doesnt sound right. I see way too many people denying the Cup, young and old. This is never talked about.

Any comments? Why do you or dont you drink the Precious Blood?

 

[Timidity]

Nota Bene:

Intinction requires one to receive on their tongue.

Only if they want to recieve under both species! You can receive under the species of bread only and receiver in the hand.

 

[frdave20]

someone may have already addressed this point, but i didn’t bother to read all of the responses…

if i am correct, the early church communicated under both species, but then some heresy sprang up to say that you HAD to receive both to receive the fullness of the communion. the Church said, NO. Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in both species, so one can receive the Body and still receive Christ completely and fully. to illurstrate this point and to emphasize it communion for the faithful was restricted to the reception of the Host.

someone correct me if I am wrong…

 

[Debbie]

From what I understand the Precious Blood should only be available to the communicants for special occasions, not on a regular basis. There is no need to receive both.

Debbie

 

[chevalier]

Err… but we are said to receive both the Precious Blood and the Body under the species of bread. So what’s the deal with reserving the species of wine for special occasions?

 

[kmktexas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nota Bene

Intinction requires one to receive on their tongue.

Only if they want to recieve under both species! You can receive under the species of bread only and receiver in the hand.

Exactly and I have seen people do this. It’s not like they are being “short changed”. Anyone who would use receiving on the tongue as an excuse to go away from Communion, needs some gentle Catechisis. Remember that Communion in the hand is by indult only. Not all countries have even asked for the indult. For example, Communion in Colombia (where my in-laws live) is only available on the tongue. Same thing for the diocese of Cozumel in Mexico. Any Bishop could, at any time, retract the indult from his diocese. Receiving in the hand is an option sometimes, not a right. Receiving on the tongue is the normative way for the Church (Latin rite) and always permitted.

But we digress and have been down that road before (a hundred times. )

 

[tee_eff_em]

Debbie:

From what I understand the Precious Blood should only be available to the communicants for special occasions, not on a regular basis.

And from what do you understand this?

GIRM #281 says:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.

See also Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

tee

 

[BulldogCath]

Food For Thought – Communion in the Hand…WHY?

**‘Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.’

–St. Thomas Aquinas
**

• Have you noticed a change in the way the Catholic Church receives and administers Holy Communion from the way it once was?
• Do you remember when Catholics always knelt for Holy Communion?
• Do you remember when Catholics received Holy Communion on the tongue only?
• Do you remember when only the priest administered Holy Communion?
• Do you remember our priests and sisters teaching us it was sacrilegious for anyone but the priest to touch the Sacred Host?
• Do you remember when tabernacles were always on the center of the altar as the primary focal point?
• Why has kneeling for Holy Communion disappeared?
• Why are tabernacles disappearing from the center of the Churches and placed on the side?
• Why are people receiving Communion in the hand?
• Why are there lay-ministers of the Eucharist?
• Why were these things changed?
• If things were changed for the sake of “modern times” and “modern men”, has it resulted in record crowds of “modern men” flocking into the Churches to pray and receive the Sacraments?
• Do we have record turnouts in our seminaries, monasteries, and convents?
• Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of vocations in the Church?
• Has the introduction of these new things increased the amount of converts coming into the Church?
• Was there a “vocation crisis” before these essential and fundamental things were changed?
• In the rubrics of the Old Rite of Mass, why was there such precaution taken against the desecration of the Sacred Species?
• Why did the priest wash his fingers after administering Holy Communion?
• Why did the priest scrape the corporal with the paten so as not to allow even the slightest minute particle to fall to the ground and be desecrated?
• Why when Holy Communion was dropped, the Host was covered and left on the floor until after Mass, where the priestwould then remove it, and then carefully clean the area where the Sacred Host lay?
• Why did these rubrics disappear?
• Was there more faith in the Real Presence before the “renewal?”
• Was there a deeper and greater understanding and appreciation of the Blessed Sacrament as really and truly being the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine?
• Were the old rubrics simply “over scrupulous?”
• Did the old rubrics and strict laws safeguarding reverence, dignity, and holiness, not express the Catholic Faith regarding the Blessed Sacrament properly?
• Do we now understand and believe in it in a different manner, and this is therefore manifested by the actions of first the clergy, then the laity?
• Are we afraid to adore the Sacred Host?
• Are we ashamed to adore the Sacred Host?
• Is it any coincidence that Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament began to fade away more and more with the introduction of Communion in the hand and lay ministers of the Eucharist?
• Has Catholic teaching changed regarding TRANSUBSTANTIATION, that is, the changing of the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ during the Sacrifice of the Mass?
• If the teaching has not changed, why has attitude, spirit, rubrics and practice changed?
• Where did Communion in the hand come from since it is nowhere proposed or even mentioned in the documents of Vatican II?
• Why did it still come about on a worldwide scale even after Pope Paul VI in his 1969 letter to the Bishops, “Memoriale Domini” stated “This method, ‘on the tongue’ must be retained?”
• If it is supposed to be “optional”, why are the little children in most parochial schools taught no other way than receiving in the hand as “this is the way it is done?”
• Why is there a new attitude of “anyone can handle it?”

The results of Communion in the hand and the Novus Ordo have caused a major crisis in the Catholic Church. *The New York Times *reported that when Catholics were asked, in a *Times-CBS *news poll, what best describes their belief about what happens to the bread and wine at Mass, most chose the answer that the bread and wine are “symbolic reminders of Christ” over the answer that they are “changed into the Body and Blood of Christ”. The official Church teaching, which we must believe in order to be saved, is this: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharist species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and the whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ

 

[Catholicguy]

Canons on Communion Under Both Species and that of Little Children (June 4, 1562) TRENT

Canon 1.If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.

Canon 2.If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only, or has erred in this, let him be anathema.

Canon 3.If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species, let him be anathema.

Canon 4.If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema.

 

[Micki]

CanonAlberic:

Personally, I don’t like drinking out of the same cup as other people have (germs, etc.). By the same token, I’ve never liked the “Peace Be With Ya” handshake thing (I don’t know where these people’s hands have been!)… I remember the good old days when this wasn’t done in church.
On a more secular and worldy note, most churches seem to use wine that tastes like that stuff that comes out of a 5 litre box!

"Negotium Perambulans in Tenebris"

Mine does. The wine is right from the box–Franzia Sunset Blush!!
I never take the Precious Blood at this parish.
Micki

 

[CanonAlberic]

Micki:

Mine does. The wine is right from the box–Franzia Sunset Blush!!
I never take the Precious Blood at this parish.
Micki

Wow, Franzia straight out of the box?? That’s pretty cheezy. No offense toward this church intended, but why do I picture them using a loaf of “Wonder Bread” for the Host?

"Negotium Perambulans in Tenebris"

 

[kmktexas]

st_felicity:

AAhhh… I assumed you meant self-intinction…I never knew that a community all could receive from the hand of the priest by intiction. That would solve the backwash and dribbling problem! Would there also be a line for those that do not want to receive under both species for whatever reason?

Well, in the specific case that I described, it’s daily Mass and there is only one “line”. Those that only want to receive under one species generally receive in the hand and simply extend their hands as they approach. If you wanted to receive on the tongue but only under one species, I suppose you could mention it to Father before Mass or simply indicate it to him before he intincts the Host.

 

[Timidity]

CanonAlberic:

Wow, Franzia straight out of the box?? … but why do I picture them using a loaf of “Wonder Bread” for the Host?

Wonder Bread isn’t valid matter. Franzia is.