How many people here, when going to the Novus Ordo, receive the Blood? What was the reasoning behind Vatican II to allow people to receive “both forms”? I personally think that they should not have done it because there is greater chance for the blood to be spilled and it seems to contradict that if you receive the body alone you receive the whole Christ, you do not need to receive the blood.
Not that it’s necessary, but it’s nice, like having dessert at your dinner along with the meat and vegetables. I don’t do it often at all, but I think it’s good to at least sometimes make communion available under both species.
Besides which, Christ did say ‘take and drink’ as well as ‘take and eat’, did he not? What is wrong with permitting those who want to obey this command to do so at least occasionally?
Not that it’s necessary, but it’s nice, like having dessert at your dinner along with the meat and vegetables.
I think that is a great analogy.
Yep. Both forms most of the time.
The only time I don’t take the precious blood is when I go to mass before I go to school - I don’t want my school kids or other teachers thinking I’m hitting the bottle too early in the day.
I think it is interesting that many traditionalists don’t approve of the cup being offered when the Eastern Catholic church has always offered both species. And certainly, the Divine Liturgy that they use is much older than the TLM of recent era.
But, I think the objection is the use of Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion? I would think a Extraordinary minister offering the cup would be less offensive than one touching the Host.
Our N.O. parish normally offers the Eucharist Intincted (by either a priest or deacon), at the Communion Rail.
So I voted ‘yes’
Traditionalists don’t object to the offering of the Eucharist Intincted by a priest or deacon. It has a long history and deep symbolism.
But generally, the faithful should not touch the Sacred Vessels. That is not possible with the offering of the chalice directly.
That the laity should recieve only the Host is a long-standing tradition, I believe from perhaps the 1200s.
I am not sure how the laity would have recieved both species before then, as there would have been no Lay Communion Ministers. Perhaps by intinction, which as Brendan pointed out is quite an old tradition.
Either way, I think that the laity recieving the Host is quite sufficient as It contains the fullness of the Body and Blood of Christ by Itself. I do not recieve from the Chalice at any Novus Ordo Masses I go to.
I would say the primary objection for me (and probably some other Traditionalists) would be, as you mention, the use of laypeople to distribute the chalice. Yes, it is less offensive than a layperson distributing holy communion. But then I only receive holy communion from a priest at the Novus Ordo.
I think it’s great that both forms are available. I have some friends who are allergic to wheat and can’t take the host without having an allergic reaction.
I take both forms unless I have a cold.
I don’t know what the big deal is. It’s what you believe and your disposition that counts, not whether you take the cup.
This is from the Council of Trent:
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.
I recently talked to a Byzantine rite priest. He was emphatic that we westerns should insist on both forms. He was very forceful that we shouldn’t allow our Roman priests to only give us the Body of Christ without the cup.
Isn’t that funny? My previous experience with traditionalists in the Roman rite is that they are emphatic that only the bread should be offered. I was bemused. The Byzantine rite uses the Divine Liturgy authored by St. John Chrystosom in the 400s (I believe).
But, they do mix the species and the priest is the only one distributing the cup.
I think the chief objection is not the forms though, it is the role of the laity as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
Am I right?
It’s really a monkey-see monkey-do kind of thing for a lot of people. An EM shows none of the reverance that a priest does at a TLM mass to our Lord.
People pick up on this, see the EM’s not thinking it’s that big of a deal, so they, in turn, don’t think it’s a big deal either.
This, no doubt, at least partly feeds into the large percentage of “Catholics” who don’t believe in the True Presence.
Everyone present should know that the Eucharist is a big deal, and treat it as such. The only way to fix this are with better rubrics and better catechesis.
Yes, that is called Intinction, when the Host is dipped into the Precious Blood, and I personally have no problem with it. The upside for Intinction is that only a priest or a deacon may distribute the Eucharist in this method and one may only recieve on the tongue. I would have no problem with Intinction.
This has always confused me, why is it called “Precious Blood” when in fact both forms are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ? Is it just a slang term that’s acknowledged as not accurate? Are we really to say something like “Receive from the chalice”, or “drink from the chalice” instead?
May God be with you.
I said yes. While I know the Whole Christ is present in the Host, the blood is also offered and it too contains all of Christ.
I do think if you do not take the Blood you should genuflect as you go by acknowledging Christ’s true Body Blood Soul and Divinity.
God bless you
The chief objection is NOT the distrubtion of both forms. By parents recieved both forms on occasion when they were growing up, on certain feasts such as Easter, Christmas or days with a particular association with the Eucharist, such as Holy Thursday or Corpus Christi.
So it’s not an issue with ‘Traditionalists’ per se.
The objection comes in when the cup is handed to lay people (EMHC or otherwise).
I myself have seen such abuses as a person recieving from the chalice and then wiping off a ‘dribble’ of the Precious Blood with their hand.
Both forms may certainly be offered, but done as your Byzantine Priest friend does it, intincted and with no contact with Sacred Vessels by the laity.
That is the greatest safeguard against profanation we can have.
The problem there is that Christ is Present within YOU as you go past.
When you recieve the Eucharist, as long as the Real Presence remains, you are personally a Tabernacle of the Lord.
The focus is on Christ within you. Otherwise, we would be genuflecting not only towards the chalice, but all those who have just recieved the Eucharist.
Just as a point of interest, in the Divine Liturgy of St. James (used only 2 or 3 times a year) the laity DO touch the poterion (chalice)!