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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
The EMHC should not allow it. It is permissable for the person to take the Host, hand it to the priest or EMHC who then intincts and dispenses the intincted Host. There should always be a paten used when Communion is by intinction. If your parish uses patens, they are likely at the Host stations and not the stations for the cup. There is a great danger of dripping or of dipping too far and leaving wine on ones fingers. When the priest does the intinction, the latter problem is taken care of during the purification of the vessels.

If you know the EMHC well, you could mention it to him or her. Or you could speak to the pastor about it. Chances are the EMHC has been puzzled too but it is a rare issue so probably wasn’t covered in training. 😉
 
40.png
Timidity:
Wonder Bread isn’t valid matter. Franzia is.
Click to expand...
Too true, Franzia no doubt has more nutritional value than Wonder Bread. I was going with the comedy angle on this one… I find the mental image of a priest piously consecrating a big cardboard box (complete with plastic spigot!) full of undrinkable, ultracheap wine to be pretty amusing.
 
Catholicguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that. I would’ve looked up the Council of Trent myself last night, but I’m too lazy. :o

And I know some people don’t like all the “anathemas” of Trent. But, hey, the same Holy Spirit that inspired Vatican II inspired Trent. If anyone denies that, let him be anathema. 😉
 
I just came across this on the EWTN Q&A site. Someone asks Father Echert, “Am I wrong in not taking the Precious Blood at Mass for the reason that I have a cold and do not want to pass it to anyone?” to which Father Echert replied, “No one is obliged to receive the Precious Blood at Mass except the Priest. On the rare occasion that I am not saying Mass, for instance if I were on vacation visiting my Mother and going to another Parish, I do not receive the Precious Blood in sickness or in health.” I just thought I’d pass this on as it made me wonder how common or uncommon this is in Parishes around the Country. As I stated in an earlier post,in the Parish I belong, no one but the Priest takes the Precious Blood. I am a convert (10 Years this April), but family members that have been Catholic for 50 years or more say that the people never drank the Precious Blood, only the Priest before “the changes” came to the Church.
 
Dr. Bombay:
And I know some people don’t like all the “anathemas” of Trent. But, hey, the same Holy Spirit that inspired Vatican II inspired Trent.
Click to expand...
Indeed it did.
  1. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.
Click to expand...
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See…
Sacrosanctum Concilium​
Click to expand...
tee
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
Indeed it did.

Quote:
55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See…
Sacrosanctum Concilium
​

tee
Click to expand...
Ummmmm…yes, just so.

I hope no one was under the impression that I was questioning the validity of distributing communion under both kinds. It’s perfectly valid and licit.

What I was responding to was the contention that one *has *to receive under both kinds to receive the entire Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord. That’s all.
:blessyou:
 
I still feel a very special closeness to Jesus when I partake of the Blood of Christ. I think it’s because I never got the chance to when I was younger, it was not regularly offered then. It’s a real spiritual treat for me!
 
40.png
awalt:
I still feel a very special closeness to Jesus when I partake of the Blood of Christ. I think it’s because I never got the chance to when I was younger, it was not regularly offered then. It’s a real spiritual treat for me!
Click to expand...
Sure it was, the Blood of Christ has ALWAYS been offered. It is just offered under the accident of bread.
 
I have learned a lot in the flurry of posts since I was last on. I see that in many places the Cup isnt even offered, that it could be done by intinction but isnt usually for some reason, Im starting to see that I was leaning towards an incorrect view that both should be taken, but things like Trent say thats not good.

I find myself left in the dark on this issue still:
So why is the Cup offered in the first place?

After reading a few I agree that Intinction seems like the way to go but nobody outside this thread seems to care.

Kmk
CD, please understand that my choice to receive for the time being under just one species is a personal reminder to myself, not a lesson for the kids in my class.
Click to expand...
I respect that. Im seeing that I kind of put some heat on your post, I get into typing and sometimes I go to far.

Timidity
Or do you mean with both species? I personally partake of both, but it’s not necessary.
Click to expand...
So why do you?, Just for my understanding, the way you were posting I got the feeling that you didnt?

NB
Intinction requires one to receive on their tongue. Sadly, that would drive many away from Communion…
Click to expand...
It would drive people away? Thats a sad thing for them to do, is that why Intinction is rare?

frdave
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…
Click to expand...
Good post, If anyone has more info I would love to hear it.

And last of all to one of my heros, Bulldog. I dont know how to respond to the disrespect that has crept in. I try to stay on the conservative zone, but when I read your posts I dont know how to fix it. I dont know what to do.
most chose the answer that the bread and wine are “symbolic reminders of Christ”
Click to expand...
 
one thing a priest told our congregation a while back that really touched me is that if you are choosing to not recieve the prescious blood, then you should not just walk by in indifference, but should make a sign of the cross out of reverence.

I don’t know if this is actual Catholic teaching or not, but it really made me think. It does almost seem a little disrespectful to walk by without agknowledging to me now since he’s said that.
 
I don’t like the taste of alcohol and wiping off the chalice with a cloth is not sanitary. That sounds disrespectful but it’s how I feel. I have never felt I was receiving less than 100% of Christ when I receive the bread only.
 
40.png
beverly30:
one thing a priest told our congregation a while back that really touched me is that if you are choosing to not recieve the prescious blood, then you should not just walk by in indifference, but should make a sign of the cross out of reverence.

I don’t know if this is actual Catholic teaching or not, but it really made me think. It does almost seem a little disrespectful to walk by without agknowledging to me now since he’s said that.
Click to expand...
Not if you consider that if you have already received the Host, you have the Real Presence inside you. Therefore, an act of reverence is not necessary and your priest is misinformed.

Please don’t dig up threads that have been dead for three months.
 
For myself I am a convert from Anglicanism and therefore kind of feel as though I have missed out on something if I dont get to partake under both species. My children also partake of both species but I think that may be because I do.

Here in New Zealand we have a major epidemic of Meningitis B which is communicated via saliva…and yet there have been no reports of this dreadful disease being communicated via the Chalice and funnily enough nor has there been any reports of any other disease being caught from the Chalice. I cant understand why people would even dream that the Precious Blood would carry anything that could harm us His children.

Also, as another point of difference, we dont have plain wine here in NZ. We use fortified wine, I think it is port. We do this because of tradition in that the first missionaries found that wine didn’t travel well but fortified wines did. I think I may be correct ( but I’m not absolutely sure) that the Pope of the time (1840s) gave Pompalier some kind of dispensation. I dont think this has been removed even til now
 
Well, here’s why I don’t. Please don’t take this as a “the NO is invalid and evil, Benedict XVI isn’t really a Pope, etc.” post, either:

In the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium, Paragraph 55, it states that Communion under both species is allowable under limited circumstances:

“…to the newly ordained in the Mass of the Sacred Ordination, or the newly professed in the Mass of Profession, and the newly baptized in the Mass which follows baptism.”

Now, yes, I realize that the Bishops have authorized Communion under both species to be given under much wider circumstances, many times at every Mass, but that is contrary to the nature of the document. But what Vat-II said, and what was actually implemented is another thread.

And receiving under both kinds likely weakens a Catholic’s true, heart-felt belief in the Real Presence–body, blood, soul, and divinity- in each species.

And it further creates a horizontal where the Priesthood and the laity are perfect equals.
 
Well, I guess that I am a whimp, as I receive Christ’s Body and Blood in the Host. I went back to this practice a few years ago after many years of receiving the Host and the Precious Blood from the cup.

I was an EMHC for many, many years (until I moved), and toward the end of my tenure, I began to see a lot of people become sloppy about slobbering into the cup. While I always rotated the cup and the purificator (so that every wipe got a clean spot of cloth), I saw a lot of EMs wipe away with the purificator, never turning it and so on.

I know, I sound picky and petty. I know in my heart that God would not allow us to be harmed by germs…but it is just difficuilt to get over the mental pictures that I have.

It is just a hang-up that I have.

Joe
 
I did until I saw stuff floating in the precious blood too – just freaks me out :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
I have a totally different take on t.During the apparitions at Fatima when the three children received communion.Lucia who recently died only took the Host,while her cousins took the Chalice of the precious Blood:hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top