Why do some Masses not offer the blood at communion for parishioners?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I know this has probably been discussed before, but I can’t seem to find an answer using the search feature. So, forgive me if it’s a repetitive question.

I am entering into a “debate”, even though I use the word discussion, on a protestant forum and someone has asked me why some Masses, televised, do not offer, “wine”, the blood of Christ to the people? I would very much appreciate an answer I can provide to our separated brethren.

 

[Lycoming]

I know this has probably been discussed before, but I can’t seem to find an answer using the search feature. So, forgive me if it’s a repetitive question.

I am entering into a “debate”, even though I use the word discussion, on a protestant forum and someone has asked me why some Masses, televised, do not offer, “wine”, the blood of Christ to the people? I would very much appreciate an answer I can provide to our separated brethren.

As you probably already know the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is fully present in each individual species (Consecrated Host and Precious Blood.)

While the Church states that communion under both species provides an improved sign value (and it clearly does) it does formally give the option of communion under one or both species – via the host unless there is a problem with consuming the host. Some parishes choose to distribute under one species as a matter of convenience I suspect, others might limit to one species because of the huge number of attendees at special Masses and others because they want to save communion under both species for special feasts.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

First of all, whether you receive the Sacred Host by itself, the Precious Blood by itself, or both, you receive Jesus completely: body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Beyond that, it is optional whether communion will be distributed under both species. The pastor may or may not choose to give the Precious Blood. There may also be practical considerations based on the number of people receiving communion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks for the quick replies! You have articulated well enough for me to formulate a response.

Another point that was brought up was why the priest receives both the body and blood even if the parishioners are not offered both?

Thanks again.

 

[dixibehr]

You might want to mention that Eastern Catholics generally distribute Communion under both species.

 

[yearofthelord]

I have also had it pointed out that the priest has the discretion to decide when to offer the precious Blood. One concern is, when there are a large number receiving, that offering the precious Blood could result in an inadvertant spill.

However, in many parish churches, the Body and Blood are offered only on Sunday and major feasts, with only the Body being offered on weekdays. This may be because there are more ministers (ordinary and extraordinary) available on Sundays.

 

[japhy]

Another point that was brought up was why the priest receives both the body and blood even if the parishioners are not offered both?

The priest is bound by Church law to consume the sacrifice under both species of bread and wine, probably for two reasons: 1) the Apostles were explicitly told to do so, and 2) as an extension of the Mosaic sacrificial law whereby the priest had to consume the offering.

 

[Kielbasi]

It is an optional part of the mass, and a lot of factors can play a part in the decision- including the number of communicants expected, the number of EM’s and other individuals administering the sacrament, even the amount of wine that the priest has to consecrate.

Since it isn’t required for the sacrament, a lot of practical and logistic problem have to be addressed to offer communion under both kinds.

 

[Lycoming]

I have also had it pointed out that the priest has the discretion to decide when to offer the precious Blood. One concern is, when there are a large number receiving, that offering the precious Blood could result in an inadvertant spill.

However, in many parish churches, the Body and Blood are offered only on Sunday and major feasts, with only the Body being offered on weekdays. This may be because there are more ministers (ordinary and extraordinary) available on Sundays.

I don’t think that’s the case I think it has more to do with the difficulty in planning how much wine to consecrate. Unlike consecrated hosts for the most part, Precious Blood is not typically reserved.

 

[Lycoming]

It is an optional part of the mass, and a lot of factors can play a part in the decision- including the number of communicants expected, the number of EM’s and other individuals administering the sacrament, even the amount of wine that the priest has to consecrate.

Since it isn’t required for the sacrament, a lot of practical and logistic problem have to be addressed to offer communion under both kinds.

Why?

 

[japhy]

Why?

The USCCB offers this explanation: “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”

 

[Lycoming]

The USCCB offers this explanation: “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”

I don’t think that’s the USCCB’s call.

NO WHERE does the Holy See even hint at limiting distribution to one species so as not to employ too many EMsHC. There are other valid reasons but this isn’t one of them.

Then again this is not a directive. Just some rather odd commentary that need not be followed.

 

[acadian]

Our parish never offers it, and I’m pretty sure the reason is that it would severely impede traffic flow.

Our previous pastor was also pastor of another parish when he was with us, and his other parish always offers it, so I don’t think it’s any kind of philosophical issue.

 

[japhy]

I don’t think that’s the USCCB’s call. … Then again this is not a directive. Just some rather odd commentary that need not be followed.

Uh, actually it’s the Vatican-approved “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”.
In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Fiorenza, Bishop of Galveston-Houston, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated June 21, 2001, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text entitled, “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America,” as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

…

On June 15, 2001, the Latin members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the attached “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America.”

In accord with the approval of these norms and following the confirmation of this action by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 22, 2002 (Prot. 1383/01/L), they are hereby published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America.

The effective date of this decree will be April 7, 2002, the Second Sunday of Easter.
I would guess that this was the USCCB’s implementation of Ecclesiae de Mysterio’s Art. 8, Sec. 2 call to avoid “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful.’”

Redemptionis Sacramentum (promulgated later than the USCCB Norms) echoes this concern:
151. Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.

1. These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests, in such a way that the latter neglect the celebration of Holy Mass for the people for whom they are responsible, or their personal care of the sick, or the baptism of children, or assistance at weddings or the celebration of Christian funerals, matters which pertain in the first place to Priests assisted by Deacons. It must therefore never be the case that in parishes Priests alternate indiscriminately in shifts of pastoral service with Deacons or laypersons, thus confusing what is specific to each.

 

[Lycoming]

Uh, actually it’s the Vatican-approved “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America”.
In response to the request of His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Fiorenza, Bishop of Galveston-Houston, President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, made in a letter dated June 21, 2001, and by virtue of the faculties granted to this Congregation by the Supreme Pontiff JOHN PAUL II, we grant recognition of the text entitled, “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America,” as found in the attached copy, and which shall be inserted into future editions of the Roman Missal published in English for use in the dioceses of the this same Conference.

…

On June 15, 2001, the Latin members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the attached “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America.”

In accord with the approval of these norms and following the confirmation of this action by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 22, 2002 (Prot. 1383/01/L), they are hereby published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America.

The effective date of this decree will be April 7, 2002, the Second Sunday of Easter.
I would guess that this was the USCCB’s implementation of Ecclesiae de Mysterio’s Art. 8, Sec. 2 call to avoid “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful.’”

Redemptionis Sacramentum (promulgated later than the USCCB Norms) echoes this concern:
151. Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional. Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.

1. These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests, in such a way that the latter neglect the celebration of Holy Mass for the people for whom they are responsible, or their personal care of the sick, or the baptism of children, or assistance at weddings or the celebration of Christian funerals, matters which pertain in the first place to Priests assisted by Deacons. It must therefore never be the case that in parishes Priests alternate indiscriminately in shifts of pastoral service with Deacons or laypersons, thus confusing what is specific to each.

Uh actually it’s not a directive anyway.

 

[japhy]

Uh actually it’s not a directive anyway.

Well played! I never said it was a “directive”; that was your word.
In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
This is a “recommendation” (or at the least, a “strong suggestion”) by the USCCB which has been approved by Rome. In other words, if a bishop or priest decides to do this, he has the encouragement of the USCCB and the CDWDS. If EMHCs are being used excessively (habitually?) to the point of obscuring the distinction between ordinary MHCs and extraordinary MHCs, one way to alleviate the issue (by reducing the number of ministers necessary – starting with the EMHCs) is to not offer both species, or to offer via intinction.

Your original response was:

I don’t think that’s the USCCB’s call.

NO WHERE does the Holy See even hint at limiting distribution to one species so as not to employ too many EMsHC. There are other valid reasons but this isn’t one of them.

Then again this is not a directive. Just some rather odd commentary that need not be followed.

I think it is the USCCB’s call, as far as offering a legitimate way to avoid over-use of EMHCs.

While I cannot find a document from Rome concerning the limiting of Communion to one species expressly because of over-use of EMHCs, I have shown statements concerning the regulation of the frequency of using EMHCs.

And while this particular practice (not offering the Chalice so as to reduce EMHC use) does not “need to be followed”, it is not simply “rather odd commentary”.

Are you going to ignore and deflect this, or can you accept it as a legitimate liturgical practice?

 

[diggerdomer]

I know this has probably been discussed before, but I can’t seem to find an answer using the search feature. So, forgive me if it’s a repetitive question.

I am entering into a “debate”, even though I use the word discussion, on a protestant forum and someone has asked me why some Masses, televised, do not offer, “wine”, the blood of Christ to the people? I would very much appreciate an answer I can provide to our separated brethren.

If this point was raised before and I missed it, I apologize if I didn’t see it.

See para 281: usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4

Clearly the Church sees advantages to communion under both kinds. Seems to me that those who choose not to celebrate this way on Sundays are under the burden to justify why not. I know “logistics” et. al. are often given as reasons, but I don’t read the GIRM as saying that “logistics” are an essential concern here.

Historically, unfortunately imho, the reason many Catholics may cling to a different preference, that of receiving only under one species, would go back to the doctrinal debates at the time of the Reformation and Council of Trent. The Catholic Church (rightly) defended the practice of reception under one species, asserting that the entire divinity of Jesus Christ (body and blood) was received under either species. Theological point taken.

Unfortunately, many came to see this as saying that communion under only one species was preferred, which the Church never taught as a theological principle.

 

[Lycoming]

If this point was raised before and I missed it, I apologize if I didn’t see it.

See para 281: usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4

Clearly the Church sees advantages to communion under both kinds. Seems to me that those who choose not to celebrate this way on Sundays are under the burden to justify why not. I know “logistics” et. al. are often given as reasons, but I don’t read the GIRM as saying that “logistics” are an essential concern here.

Historically, unfortunately imho, the reason many Catholics may cling to a different preference, that of receiving only under one species, would go back to the doctrinal debates at the time of the Reformation and Council of Trent. The Catholic Church (rightly) defended the practice of reception under one species, asserting that the entire divinity of Jesus Christ (body and blood) was received under either species. Theological point taken.

Unfortunately, many came to see this as saying that communion under only one species was preferred, which the Church never taught as a theological principle.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Seems to me that those who choose not to celebrate this way on Sundays are under the burden to justify why not.

Should we view it that way?

The way the situation stands now, it seems to me, is that one must first qualify for the privilege of celebrating under both kinds (although that privilege has been expanded over time). If one doesn’t qualify for the privilege, it doesn’t seem as if any burden falls on a pastor to justify why not. In fact, it seems to me that the way things stand, it is a burden of the pastor or local Ordinary to justify why they meet the requirements that must be met before instituting communion under both kinds.

I suppose that is another way of looking at it.

VC

 

[Lycoming]

Should we view it that way?

The way the situation stands now, it seems to me, is that one must first qualify for the privilege of celebrating under both kinds (although that privilege has been expanded over time). If one doesn’t qualify for the privilege, it doesn’t seem as if any burden falls on a pastor to justify why not. In fact, it seems to me that the way things stand, it is a burden of the pastor or local Ordinary to justify why they meet the requirements that must be met before instituting communion under both kinds.

I suppose that is another way of looking at it.

VC

No way. Within the current GIRM there is no need to “qualify for the privilege” – it’s not only granted it’s recommended due to the greatly improved sign value. diggerdomer’s comments: “Seems to me that those who choose not to celebrate this way on Sundays are under the burden to justify why not.” seem to be spot-on. The touchy part is different people interpreting the given justifications from different mindsets.