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

[Verbum_Caro]

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.

It seems to me that the GIRM references when communion under both kinds is permitted:

1. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for
   a. Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
   b. The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
   c. Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with
   seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

Taking the “cases given in the ritual books” (look them up!) along with the other three permissions, it seems that the approach isn’t one of “all should, and if they don’t then they must justify why not!” but rather “here is a meaningful option, and here is where one *may *avail oneself of it”.

The GIRM goes on to expand the option, on the basis of the discretion of the local ordinary:

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.

And that "provided that. . . " part seems to limit the discretion of the ordinary, not the other way round where the ordinary must justify why he hasn’t permitted it.

The local norms even add this helpful comment:

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

All in all I think that it’s not simply a matter of: “those who choose not to celebrate this way on Sundays are under the burden to justify why not.”

Rather, it seems to me that the more accurate view would be a synthesis between the Church’s encouragement and the Church’s caution.

VC

 

[diggerdomer]

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

I’m just going off what the Church teaches, vis-a-vis the GIRM.

 

[Corki]

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.

It’s optional. If a priest choses not to offer Communion under both kinds at Sunday Mass, he needs no other justification other than that.

Our pastor never does the shared sign of peace. It’s optional. Feels a little weird, but that’s his choice. Option I of the penitential rite is recommended too but I know parishes where it is never used. Eucharistic Prayer I is the recommended one for Sunday Masses but you can search the threads here and see that many priests rarely use anything but EP II. Celebrants have options and they exercise them.

I just watched the re-run of Archbishop Dolan’s Installation Mass at St. Patrick’s. Communion was under one kind only. They certainly didn’t have a shortage of ordinary ministers, space or time. Somebody planning the liturgy made the choice.

“are under the burden to justify why not” As in all choices, the choice shouldn’t be made for no reason at all. But to whom are you suggesting the priest owes a justification? Certainly not to the faithful Mass attendees! Maybe to the Bishop; but probably only to himself.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m just going off what the Church teaches, vis-a-vis the GIRM.

Aye, same here. I thought your statement could use a bit of scrutiny, and perhaps a bit of balancing. It is why I reproduced the portions of the GIRM above.

VC

 

[benedictgal]

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.

The celebranat consumes both species because the sacrifice is not complete until he eats the Body and drinks the Blood of Christ. This dates back to the sacrificial ritual of the Aaronic priesthood. The sacrifice was not complete until the priest consumed his share.

 

[jediliz]

My brother in law, a convert, was confused why when we went to Mass @ my brother’s parish for Christmas Eve mass a few years ago, why they didn’t offer the Wine.

I tried to explain to him that Jesus is fully present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host.

His and my sister’s parish (in a different Diocese) has both species. I never receive the wine. They also excessively use EMHCs, only having one priest and a permanent deacon otherwise (Even though last year for my niece’s 1st communion they had a second priest for the children receiving for the 1st time).

 

[benedictgal]

My brother in law, a convert, was confused why when we went to Mass @ my brother’s parish for Christmas Eve mass a few years ago, why they didn’t offer the Wine.

I tried to explain to him that Jesus is fully present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host.

His and my sister’s parish (in a different Diocese) has both species. I never receive the wine. They also excessively use EMHCs, only having one priest and a permanent deacon otherwise (Even though last year for my niece’s 1st communion they had a second priest for the children receiving for the 1st time).

Just a point of clarification: after the consecration, the accidents of the species, while having the appearance and taste of wine is no longer wine. It is the Precious Blood of Christ.

Something else to consider regarding Communion under both species is this item found in Redemptionis Sacramentum:

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.

That is why you do not see the Precious Blood given to the faithful during Papal Masses. It would not be feasible. There is also the risk, as this passage from RS notes, that the Precious Blood could be profaned. The Holy Eucharist is too precious to take that kind of a risk.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just a point of clarification: after the consecration, the accidents of the species, while having the appearance and taste of wine is no longer wine. It is the Precious Blood of Christ.

Something else to consider regarding Communion under both species is this item found in Redemptionis Sacramentum:

That is why you do not see the Precious Blood given to the faithful during Papal Masses. It would not be feasible. There is also the risk, as this passage from RS notes, that the Precious Blood could be profaned. The Holy Eucharist is too precious to take that kind of a risk.

That’s one interpretation.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s one interpretation.

So now you are discounting Redemptionis Sacramentum? It is an authoritative document of the Holy See. To have both species distributed simply because it is a fuller sign does not necessarily come into play when:

a. there are vast amounts of faithful assisting at the Mass;
b. there is a very valid risk of the profanation of the Precious Blood; and
c. there is also the risk of having too much Precious Blood left over.

These are covered in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Furthermore, the celebrant makes the call whether or not to have both species distributed. You also do not seem to take into consideration that Christ is entirely present in either species.

 

[diggerdomer]

So now you are discounting Redemptionis Sacramentum? It is an authoritative document of the Holy See. To have both species distributed simply because it is a fuller sign does not necessarily come into play when:

a. there are vast amounts of faithful assisting at the Mass;
b. there is a very valid risk of the profanation of the Precious Blood; and
c. there is also the risk of having too much Precious Blood left over.

These are covered in Redemptionis Sacramentum. Furthermore, the celebrant makes the call whether or not to have both species distributed. You also do not seem to take into consideration that Christ is entirely present in either species.

Nope, sorry again, you’re judging me incorrectly, reading into what I type, and apparently incapable of considering viewpoints other than your own. I am not and never have discounted RS and I am certainly not and never have denied the theological truth of concommitance.

Thanks so much for asking though.

 

[benedictgal]

Nope, sorry again, you’re judging me incorrectly, reading into what I type, and apparently incapable of considering viewpoints other than your own. I am not and never have discounted RS and I am certainly not and never have denied the theological truth of concommitance.

Thanks so much for asking though.

You are the one who keeps arguing that this should be done and you have even quoted the GIRM. Other posters have told you that the celebrant has the right to make that call. You seem to think that those who are not offering both species are somehow violating the GIRM.

By your own statements you seem to discount what RS has to say. The fact remains that the document indicates that where there is the possibility of profanation of the Precious Blood, then, it should not be distributed. When the number of faithful is too great, then the Precious Blood should not be distributed.

Please do not resort to personal attacks or insults.

 

[japhy]

So now you are discounting Redemptionis Sacramentum?

No, he simply said that your reason (presumably of why the Precious Blood is not offered at Papal Masses) is one interpretation. I suppose diggerdomer has another interpretation as to why it is not offered?

I, for one, agree that at a Mass with that many people, it would be hard to gauge the right amount of wine to consecrate, especially since you have no idea how many people would receive from the Chalice (and Communion under both kinds is more or less discouraged when a large portion of the faithful choose not to receive under both).

 

[Brendan]

Well, Pope Benedict has declared that, in accordance with the Catechism, for pastoral reasonis that of a singles species is to be the most common means of reception.

That should be enough for any Catholic.

I have put the whole matter before the Holy Father in an audience which he granted me on 9 June 2006, and received instructions to reply as follows:

1. There is no doubt that “the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly” (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 281; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

1. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

1. Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schônmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282). “For pastoral reasons”, therefore, "this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1390).

Cardinal Arinze as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in a letter to US Bishops.

Promulgated globally in Notatie -Prot. n. 468/05/L

A priest celebrant would, therefore, be under no obligation to justify obedience to this statement to anyone.

 

[jediliz]

Just a point of clarification: after the consecration, the accidents of the species, while having the appearance and taste of wine is no longer wine. It is the Precious Blood of Christ.

Yes I am aware of that. But I personally choose not to receive under both species when I attend Mass at my sister’s parish.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just a point of clarification: after the consecration, the accidents of the species, while having the appearance and taste of wine is no longer wine. It is the Precious Blood of Christ.

We might want to clarify this even more and also point out that immediately after the consecration the wine is changed to the Precious Blood and also that the Body, Soul, and Divinity of Christ are truly present, as well, under the accidents of wine.

VC

 

[Carlion]

At our Sunday masses, the general congregation doesn’t get the chalice, but at our daily masses it is offered, and I think it’s simply for convenience, as someone else already pointed out. It’s a big parish with hundreds of people at each mass on Sunday, so logistically it would be tough. At a daily mass, we have much fewer people.

 

[diggerdomer]

You seem to think that those who are not offering both species are somehow violating the GIRM.
{/QUOTE]
No. I never said that. Sorry, again, if you’re reading too much into things.
benedictgal;5109741:

By your own statements you seem to discount what RS has to say.

So you say.

The fact remains that the document indicates that where there is the possibility of profanation of the Precious Blood, then, it should not be distributed.

Yes, of course

When the number of faithful is too great, then the Precious Blood should not be distributed.

That is your conclusion. That is not what RS says (see, I really am not discounting it). RS attaches additional considerations to the situations where it says the Precious Blood should not be distributed, it’s not simply “when the number of faithful is too great.” Too great for what? RS does spell out the “for what” part.

And for those who haven’t read it, this section of RS begins not with restrictions and limitations but with reiterating the GIRM paragraph that recognizes the “fuller sign” that occurs when communion under both kinds is celebrated. Of course the limits and considerations have to be considered and applied as written. But the goal of liturgy is not simply to follow the rules of the books.

Please do not resort to personal attacks or insults.

I apologize for any attack or insult, sincerely. I am sorry. I hope you can accept my apology.

 

[diggerdomer]

“For pastoral reasons”, therefore, “this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1390)…

Please if you’re going to quote the Catechism include the whole para 1390 (I think it would be a more fruitful discussion if a fuller context were provided for quotations people reference rather than snippets that taken by themselves alone seem to prove something):

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

And of course that para needs to be read in light of that whole section of the Catechism to even begin to appreciate the fullness of the Church teaching.

 

[Charioteer]

They use 21 chalices to distribute the Precious Blood where I sometimes attend Sunday Mass. One for those individuals in the sanctuary and 20 for everyone else. With 3000 people in attendance that’s one “distributor” per 150 communicants which seems more than reasonable.

This place has it down to a science quite literally. They have historical data giving them a good idea of how many people will be there and therefore how much wine to prepare. Their “distributors” (be the OMHC or EMHC) are extremely well trained. They are very serious about consuming any remaining Precious Blood (usually a combined 1/2 chalice or less) and purifying the vessels immediately after Mass.

Some without any knowledge of the local situation might gasp and say they shouldn’t be offering the chalice and they couldn’t be more wrong. I have news for some – the moment you offer the chalice to anyone, you increase the potential for profanation.

 

[Corki]

They use 21 chalices to distribute the Precious Blood where I sometimes attend Sunday Mass. One for those individuals in the sanctuary and 20 for everyone else. With 3000 people in attendance that’s one “distributor” per 150 communicants which seems more than reasonable.

This place has it down to a science quite literally. They have historical data giving them a good idea of how many people will be there and therefore how much wine to prepare. Their “distributors” (be the OMHC or EMHC) are extremely well trained. They are very serious about consuming any remaining Precious Blood (usually a combined 1/2 chalice or less) and purifying the vessels immediately after Mass.

Some without any knowledge of the local situation might gasp and say they shouldn’t be offering the chalice and they couldn’t be more wrong. I have news for some – the moment you offer the chalice to anyone, you increase the potential for profanation.

How do they get that many chalices on the altar for the consecration?