Traditional Latin Mass - no wine?

I’ve been reading about the Traditional Latin Mass. The other night I came upon something that I am really quite surprised about.

Would someone be able to explain to me why the consecrated wine isn’t shared with the congregation?

This was truly disappointing to me. I love the way the taste of the wine lingers with me, reminding me of Mass. And I also love the murmuring of “blood of Christ, bread of heaven, blood of Christ…” - this repeated phrase stays in my heart and mind for days afterwards. It’s haunting and beautiful - to me at least.

What is the reason for this? :shrug:

The precious Blood does not need to be distributed even in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. A lot of parishes that celebrate the OF do not distribute the Precious Blood. Distribution of the host is sufficient because even if the accidents are different the substance is the same.

Because the Church does not mandate that the Chalice be offered to the laity in each and every Mass. She allows for the Chalice -but does not mandate that it be offered. Plus fact that by receiving one species (The Host or the Chalice) --the entire Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, and all Grace) is received --makes the reception via both forms optional–since one species gives us the complete Christ.

As a Priest told me, there was a time when a particular band of heretics went about saying that in order for one to recieve the whole, ah, person? How would one say that? Anyhow, in order to recieve Christ fully, they needed to recieve, ah, Him, through both species. So the Church withheld the Precious Blood, and the heretics had to conform or leave.

The chalice is rarely offered at any mass in my archdiocese. As far as I know, the Chalice is never made available at papal masses. Not only is it unnecessary, as others have already pointed out, but it is logistically difficult. For one, there is a risk of spillage of the Precious Blood. Secondly, large quantities of wine must be used if the congregation is large. Thirdly, the addition of distributing the Chalice can be very time consuming. Finally, if there are insufficient ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (priests and deacons), I think it VERY inappropriate to bring in EMHC for the sole purpose of distributing the chalice. The Church has made it very clear that EMHCs are only to be used when there is a true necessity. As distributing the Chalice to the laity is NEVER a necessity, I don’t see why it would ever be appropriate to employ an EMHC in this regard.

Offering the chalice to the laity was never part of the Latin rite Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the old Latin Mass) …at least not for the last several hundred years. Since the time of Vatican II, the Precious blood is sometimes made available to the laity during the Ordinary Form of the Mass. My guess is that permission for the laity to receive was ONLY extended for the Ordinary Form.

My Brothers & Sisters:

Reception of our Lord under BOTH Species was part of the ANCIENT FORM at least until the 12th Century (so it was part of the Early & even the Traditional Latin Mass). Starting in the 13th Century, the Faithful began to be excluded from the CUP, depending on the situation. By the 15th Century, except for the East, The Faithful were pretty much excluded from the Cup (by the Council of Constance) in all situations & Jurisdictions.

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy & of some of the Eastern Catholic Churches. I won’t elaborate, except to say they manage to communicate the Faithful without taking significantly more time and using more ministers than Roman Catholic Churches do.

Many other Catholic Churches give it to the Faithful via some form of INTINCTION - The Priest (or Deacon) takes the Consecrated Host from a bowl or divided cup & dips it into Blessed Blood as he says, “The Body & Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” and, Then places our Lord on the Communicant’s tongue (NO Communion in the hand here!)

Churches that do this ordinarily such as the Maronite Catholic Church (or some churches in the Anglican Communion) have specialized Sacred Vessels that enable them to do this. I can tell you that distributing Communion to the Faithful using this method requires little additional time, & NO additional Sacred Ministers, over just distributing the Consecrated Hosts to the Faithful.

Catholicism is an INCARNATIONAL religion. That means God shows us HIS LOVE and gives us HIS GRACE using physical means, physical signs & symbols - God uses our senses & our intellect to bolster our faith. He doesn’t just tell us to jump in the dark. He shows us the bridge he’s built for us. In the same way, “Our Lord Took bread…,” then, “He took a cup of wine…” I know, understand and accept Trent’s Teaching on the Eucharist, because it’s the Teaching of the Church. but, I don’t think Trent describes how we’re supposed to receive our Lord - We’re NOT all theologians or Spirits, and most of us just can’t visualize the Cup coming in alongside of the Consecrated Host.

Most of us need the Symbol as much as we need the Teaching. and, For that we don’t need EMHE, but we do need DEACONS. How many here know that the historic symbol of the Deaconate is the CUP?? How many more Godly Deacons could we get if we just took the obstacles out of the way? and, How many of these Deacons would end up becoming priests?.. and Godly priests?

I wonder, If we insisted the Catholics receive the Lord RECEIVE our Lord on their knees and then receive the CUP of His most Precious Blood on their KNEES, …
How long would that require?
If we had enough DEACONS?

I’ve seen 250 people “Communicated” (almost everyone receiving under both species) in 7-8 minutes using 2 priests & 2 deacons kneeling at an altar rail that was maybe 30’ long TOTAL. 2 priests & 2 deacons could probably reverently Distribute Communion to 450 Communicants (typical Sunday crowd in most Roman Catholic parishes) kneeling at a 42-45’ altar rail in under 12 minutes (everyone receiving under both species).

Not only would everyone have the SYMBOLISM of receiving under both species, they would receive our Lord REVERENTLY while KNEELING. and, We would all receive our Lord as Catholics did for the first 1100 years of the Church’s history.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Don’t all “high” churches have altar rails? And require kneeling to receive the blessed sacrament?

I don’t get the “time” argument either - I’ve seen it done reverently yet highly efficiently.

I can understand the preference for intinction, however, for many reasons, sanitary, etc.

It just seems like something’s missing without the consecrated wine - and unless there’s a good reason NOT TO give it to the faithful, why not follow what Christ actually said? (I don’t mean to sound like a Bible fundamentalist, but he’s pretty clear; and after all, those words are repeated at every Mass!)

On the “not enough time” argument - what strikes me about it is this: the Traditional Latin Mass isn’t exactly a streamlined mass. It doesn’t seem overly-concerned with the amount of secular time passing.

And yet, after having prepared for it via prayer and so on for some time now (one might be tempted to quip interminably, even;)), when it comes to the heart of the matter - actually administering the blessed sacrament - at that moment suddenly time becomes such a huge issue. :shrug:

Yes --that is the heresy of Utraquism. This heresy is based on a combination of doing Christ’s command — and the need to receive both to receive the full Communion. I believe we are experiencing a resurgence of this heresy.

So it’s a heresy to INSIST upon it? That still isn’t a reason NOT to offer both though!

Well --the heresy itself would be the reason.

So it’s a heresy to celebrate Mass with both wine & bread?

Nope --that is not what I said. My answer was based on your “INSIST”. When someone falls into “insisting” on the Chalice—there in itself is the problem of threading into Utraquism.

Walking Home:

The ULTRAQUISTS claimed that the Sacrament wasn’t complete unless everyone received under both species. They claimed that NO MATTER what the Church said, and NO MATTER what the situation of the Communicant, unless the Communicant received BOTH the Body of Christ and the Blessed Blood, he/she just wasn’t receiving the Sacrament of our Lord’s Body & Blood. Have you heard ANYONE actually claim that? and, Do you hear anyone actually saying that here?

In the case of Teresa Schindler-Schiavo, She wasn’t able to shallow the Body of Christ, because she was SO DEHYDRATED her body couldn’t make saliva. Thank God, Fr. Pavone had brought a small amount of Lord’s Precious Blood so Terry was still able to receive Communion right before she died. and, Thank God, Our Lord has taught, through His Church, that that Little bit of Blessed Blood is enough, that Terry didn’t need to keep on trying desperately to swallow the Body of Christ when she couldn’t make saliva.

I want you to look at this argument from Catholic Encyclopedia about Denying the CUP to the Laity, and ask yourself if the same logic could be used to reverse many of current practices:

[FONT=Georgia]New Advent - Communion Under Both Kinds
(2) Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved – viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained,of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; [size=3]the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers – the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it.

[size=4][FONT=Georgia]For my part, I’ll limit my response to a few points - I’ve seen several articles by Medical Authorities on the issue of the CUP and “passing of Germs” - Most of which have given the Common Communion CUP a “Clean Bill of Health”. One of the priests from my former parish used to be the former President of the American Association of Physicians Assistants, and for 17 years (1982-1997), his practice was caring for AIDS Patients. This is ONE ARTICLE I don’t dare show him because it’ll make the Catholic Church look REALLY STUPID… And, That’s ONE THING the Church isn’t.

I don’t seem to recall people NOT going to the Communion rail because we shared a COMMON CUP. I recall people using COMMON SENSE - If you’re sick, or think you are, receive the Lord’s Precious Blood by INTINCTION, or not at all. If you’re an Alcoholic, don’t receive the Lord’s Precious Blood, or, If you have CILIAC DISEASE, Receive ONLY the precious Blood (The Council of Trent can also be used “Pastorally” and not just to make points)…

Just because the Congregation receives the Lord under both species doesn’t mean the Priests & Deacons are going to insist on taking the Sacrament under both Species to the Sick, or the Sick are going to demand that they bring the Lord to them under both Species, or Priests are going to try to pour the Lord’s Precious Blood into Ciboria & place the Ciboria into Tabernacles. People don’t lose their common sense just because they start receiving our Lord under both Species.

The bit about Spillage - I’ve worshiped in a situation where that was eliminated - The CUP was handled by Bishops, Priests & Deacons only - The only handling by the Communicants was incidental & was to “guide the CUP to their lips” - The CUP NEVER left the custody of the Bishop, Priest or Deacon who was “Distributing Our Lord’s precious Blood” to the Faithful. Everyone had Reverence for the Lord who was in the CUP, the CUP was UNDER-, NOT over-filed and handled with extreme care. Again, That may have been because the CUP was handled by Sacred Ministers ONLY!

Most Roman parishes use EMHE (NOT Deacons) who probably may nor may not understand who is in the CUP, who then have to hand the cup to LAYPEOPLE most of whom quite probably don’t understand who’s in the CUP. The result is SPILLAGE, just as the result of much of what’s being done in Roman parishes is dropping of crumbs (of our Lord) & trampling on our Lord, and a general and precipitous decline in reverence since the late 1950’s.

I’ll let the article stand as Plaintiff’s Witness One.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael[/size][/FONT]

Receiving the blood of Christ has always been an option. In the Tridentine liturgy, it was never offered. Christ’s body, blood, soul, and Divinity are equally present under either species (bread or wine). Vatican II suggested that, liturgically, it was more fulfilling if offered but never mandated it. Theologically, it isn’t necessary.

Walking Home:

I think I’ve just given a very good explanation of ULTRAQUISM.

Here’s another from Catholic Encyclopedia:

New Advent – Ultraquism

The principal dogma, and one of the four articles, of the Calixtines or Hussites. It was first promulgated in 1414, by Jacob of Mies, professor of philosophy at the University of Prague. John Hus was neither its author nor its exponent. He was a professor at the above-named university, which required its bachelors to lecture on the works of a Paris, Prague, or Oxford doctor; and in compliance with this law, Hus, it seems, based his teaching on the writings of John Wyclif, an Oxford graduate. The opinions of Wyclif – which were a cause of Utraquism – were imbibed by the students of Prague, and, after Hus had been imprisoned, the Wycliffian influence showed itself in the Hussites’ demand for Communion under both forms as necessary for salvation. This heresy was condemned in the Councils of Constance, Basle and Trent (Denzinger-Bannwart, 626, 930 sqq.).

Utraquism, briefly stated, means this: Man, in order to be saved, must receive Holy Communion when he wishes and where he wishes, under the forms of bread and wine (sub utraque specie). This, said the Hussite leader, is of Divine precept. For, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:54). To receive only the Sacred Host is not “drinking” but “eating” the Blood of Christ. That this is of Divine precept, continued the Hussite, is further evident from tradition, as up to the eleventh or twelfth century the Chalice and the Host were offered to the faithful when they communicated. Add to this, that more grace is conferred by the reception of the Eucharist under both forms, and it is clear, so Jacob of Mies maintained, that communion sub utraque specie is obligatory. This conclusion the Council of Constance rejected (Denzinger-Bannwart, 626). Then followed the Hussite wars. To make peace, the Council of Basle (1431) allowed Communion under both forms to those who had reached the age of discretion and were in the state of grace, on the following conditions: that the Hussites confess that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ were contained whole and entire both under the form of bread and under that of wine; and that they retract the statement that Communion under both forms is necessary for salvation (Mansi, XXX). To this some of the Hussites agreed, and were known as the Calixtines, from their use of the chalice. The others, led by Ziska, and called Taborites, from their dwelling on a mountain top, refused and were defeated by George Podiebrad in 1453, from which date Utraquism in Prague has been practically an empty symbol.

[size=4][FONT=Georgia]I think this is pretty clear in it’s description of what Ultraquism was.

Are you really sure you’re hearing people saying that reception of the Lord under BOTH Species - The Consecrated Hosts & the Blessed Blood - is necessary for Salvation? or, Are you hearing people saying that the SYMBOLISM of the Sacrament would be better served by distribution under both Species when that can be done reverently and in good order?
Are you really sure you’re hearing people saying that, when they receive ONLY the Body of Christ, they don’t receive the WHOLE CHRIST? or, Are you really hearing people asking us why we aren’t doing this as our Lord and the Early Church until the 12th Century did this?

And, Why is it that when someone ASKS for something, all of a sudden, they’re DEMANDING it like petulant children?? You don’t want your Priests, Bishops and the Vatican to treat you that way when you ASK for reverent Liturgies & for LATIN Masses? Do You? So, Why do you treat others who ask for what should be reasonable things, if they’re handled by reverent and Godly people, like demanding petulant children? Esp. when a few of us here have experiences with doing what they’re asking for in an EXTREMELY REVERENT GOD-CENTERED MANNER that would give you the reverent liturgy you want…

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

Traditional Ang,
Why is your text so big… or bigger than the rest… i mean yea you could change it which you did… like this right now

but why?!

It’s simply a bad habit the Latin Church got into in the Middle AGes when people did not receive Communion at the proper time–that is, during Mass after the Communion of the Clergy–but outside of Mass from the Reserved Sacrament.

When one “INSISTS”-- it is asserting a demand. Reverent Liturgies is a right given to us by the Church —but She has not given us the “right” to demand the Chalice. As I stated prior–The Church allows the Chalice --put does not mandate that it be offered in each and every Mass–and She does not mandate that the laity receive from the Chalice.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit