Tridentine Liturgy and the Precious Blood


Does anyone know, if the indult is granted and many go back to the Tridentine Liturgy, will the Precious Blood be distributed to the faithful. I certainly do hope so! I am devoted to the Precious Blood and enjoy receiving it at Mass. I know that even the smallest particle of the Host contains the entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but as the current GIRM says:

  1. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom. (Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, On the worship of the Eucharist, 25 May 1967, no. 32: AAS 59 (1967), p. 558.)

and in Redemptionis Sacramentum:

  1. So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. (Cf. Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXI, 16 July 1562, Decree on Eucharistic Communion, Chapters 1-3: DS 1725-1729; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 55; Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, nn. 282-283.)

I’m not quite sure of what “fullness” means in the above quote(s) but from Session XIII of the Council of Trent:

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.

The fullness discussed above is not regarding the substance or the grace, but the sign (a sacrament, remember, is an outward sign of an inward grace).

If it is it will undoubtedly be done through intinction and in all likelihood not done at every Mass But since the distribution of the Blood is not mandatory nor done in all Masses now, I see it as being a moot point…

Right. It is a more complete “sign”, but does not increase the grace or spiritual benefit. Just as complete emersion is a more complete sign in baptism, but does not increase the grace or spiitual benefit received.

I would dare say that most Catholics who read the above quotes will get the impression that if they do not receive under both forms they will be missing out on something of spiritual value.

Do you mean, then, that it is a fuller sign of God’s grace to receive under both species?

And on a side note, was it always just the priest who received the precious blood until recent history, or was there a time in the early church where the faithful also received under both species?

Precisely. Which is probably why Trent addressed this issue.

The current GIRM does not apply to the Roman Missal of 1962. In fact, all the “reforms” after 1962 as well do not apply to the Roman Missal of 1962. This is precisely the reason why we have the current indult and the one to come- so that we do not have to follow the reforms that began after 1962.

It would be deemed as a great scandal to many a “traditionalist” to allow any “reform” after 1962 into the current indult. It would only cause more problems.



I am aware that the GIRM is for the current missal and not the 1962 missal. But there are a couple things from Vatican II that should none the less be implemented for the Tridentine Liturgy, in my opinion. One would be actual participation. I don’t think we should go back to praying the Rosary during the Mass. Another would be to commune under both species.


One doesn’t receive more grace when one communes under both species. But it is a fuller symbol. There are two aspects to a sacrament - the outward symbol (form and matter) and the inward grace.

The change began sometime during the Middle Ages to combat those who claimed that we had to commune under both kinds to receive all the graces and get the entire Jesus. But the entire Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - is truly and substantially present in the smallest particle of the Host and the most scant drop of the Cup.

Your point taken about the Rosary during Mass. But what exactly do you mean by “actual participation”? Don’t want to sound harsh, but are you saying up until 1963, people were “faking it” during Mass? I’m of the pre-Vatican II days and I don’t remember lack of “participation” being a problem. People knew what was going on; otherwise the Church where I served wouldn’t have had standing-room only for seven Sunday morning Masses. (OK, maybe the 6am one did not have standing-room only but it had the nuns.:slight_smile: )

As far as Communion goes, don’t forget that for a long time, people took St. Paul more seriously and didn’t receive because their consciences were a little more scrupulous maybe. (You don’t receive if you’re unworthy, etc.) It became a “fullness” on their part if they went to confession first and had fasted since midnight before receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under whatever species.

What exactly do you mean by actual participation? Are you talking about having laity in the sanctuary during Mass doing the readings and acting as EMHC? The sign of peace? :eek:

And the rosary is prayed prior to the Mass, not during, at every TLM I have been to. Even at the SSPX chapels, the rosary is prayed before the Mass. At my NO church, though, there are a few old ladies who clack and clink their rosary beads throughout the whole Mass.:wink:

I truly hope the innovators leave the TLM alone.

I am aware of all that. I was wondering what your take was on it. I don’t see why there was a push to receive under both species when even one fragment of the Host contains the Body & Blood of Our Lord. It used to be that only the priest received from the Chalice. Now the laity is everywhere, doing everything a priest is privileged to do.

Paramedic Girl:

This is what I simply don’t get, esp. in you, because you’re obviously very intelligent. Since the Church permits you to receive under both species in most places, absent alcoholism or an allergy, why would you not want to? And CLEARLY this doesn’t fall under the argument that the laity are usurping the role of the priest, since it’s the priest who consecrates the Most Precious Blood and then gives it to the laity (I realize that there are usurpations of the priestly role by the laity). The Church allowed the laity to regularly recevie from the Chalice for nearly 1400 years and the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome have always done so, albeit through intinction. It’s like the “traditinalist” version of antiquarianism…nothing good happened after Pius XII died. The Church has the authority to offer it, she does so with the caveat that we receive the fullness of the Sacrament under either of the Sacred Species, she says its a fuller sign, but doesn’t require it. I should think that this “only the priest should receive from the Chalice” would have the effect of eventually elevating the Most Precious Blood ABOVE the Most Sacred Body in value, equally as dangerous doctrinally as the ultraquitist error that lead to the chalice being denied to laity.

And the “fullness of the sign” Genesis mentions is from the Catechism.

This is the biggest problem with the traditionalist movement–any development at all is decried even though the Church has been developing under the animating power of her soul, the Holy Spirit, since the beginning. The organism is essentially killed. When St. Pius X lowered the age for receiving Communion, saying that the higher age was based on errors and that it led to errors, were people up in arms? Did they think everything before was perfect and therefore the Pope’s decision was a pernicious novelty? What about when the Chalice was originally denied the people? What was the reaction? What about when the Nicene Creed was changed an the Filioque was added? What about when Gregory XIII changed the calendar and moved Easter? What about when Pius XII changed the order for Holy Week?

It seems to me Catholics were just fine with all those developments and the only people who got up in arms about them (in the cases where anyone actually did get upset) they ended up being schismatics or heretics like the Greeks or the Protestants.

John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

John 6:55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

John 6:56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

And at the Last Supper, Jesus did not restrict the apostles’ partaking only to the bread, but said “Take and DRINK ye all of this …” Mt. 26:27

The Church has granted the privilege of receiving both species. To oppose this and deny the faithful because one is an ultra-conservative is just pure error, plain and simple.

You can’t convince me people are just fine with ALL of the developments you mentioned above. For sure people seem to accept more readily relaxation of previous disciplines but does this mean that those opposed (who are purists perhaps) must be branded as schismatics or heretics?

Doctrines and scripture are another matter. But here again, you don’t just simply lay upon the faithful Christians a shocker and expect them not to question the source of these new revelations. Yes, I’m sure that they’ll be a few who’ll follow you no matter what you say, but who’s to say that those that don’t follow you immediately will stand not as tall before God? Let him without sin…

You say it is pure error–to abide by Trent.


Being the fifth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the sixteenth day of July, MDLXII.

Note: This title is missing in the Waterworth translation, 1848 edition.

The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,-whereas, touching the tremendous and most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are in divers places, by the most wicked artifices of the devil, spread abroad certain monstrous errors, by reason of which, in some provinces, many are seen to have departed from the faith and obedience of the Catholic Church, It has thought fit, that what relates to communion under both species, and the com-munion of infants, be in this place set forth. Wherefore It forbids all the faithful in Christ to presume henceforth to believe, teach, or preach otherwise on these matters, than is in these decrees explained and defined.

That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.

Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)

JKIRK, you ask why I would not want to. Since the answer to this will be subjective, based on my opinion, please keep that in mind. I choose not to receive from the chalice because it is not required by the Church. Jesus is present, whole and complete, in the consecrated host, so why do I need to drink from the chalice?

Another reason is that I do not approve of EMHC having a role in the Mass, even though I know the Church allows it. I choose not to receive communion from them, because I am uncomfortable with their role. I prefer to receive from a priest. Just another reason I prefer the TLM. And before people go off and say that the Mass is so full it would delay the Mass to not use EMHC, at my church there are usually about 50 people or less, and that is easily managed by one priest. Besides, if people don’t have time to wait to receive Jesus, I think their priorities are wrong.

As to first, the Church DOES authoritatively teach that it is a fuller sign, though no, you’re not required.

So you would have no objection to rec. from the Chalice if a priest administered it either from the Chalice or via intinction?

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