www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholic Communion - Why no Blood?

To address brother Thanos' question a bit more fully, for nearly 800 years *no* RC layperson ever received the Most Precious Blood under the form of wine. Then, when the practice was re-introduced after Vatican II, it was and continues to be optional. Some bishops encourage the practice, while others do not. RC traditionalists tend to dislike it, both because it is a break with nearly 800 years of "tradition" and because the minister of the chalice is nearly always a layperson.

SS, the explanation you give does not take into account the fact that in the East, we see the Eucharist is something Our Lord commanded us to do, and when we deviate from the model He gave us for it, it should only be by way of exception and for good reason (as we do by giving only the Precious Blood to infants). While it is true that Christ cannot be divided up, we believe that the integrity of the sacrament should be maintained.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

No it doesn't. But this one obviously is, based both on history and current Orthodox practice. What of the theology of the Presanctified Liturygy? What is the dogmatic force of anything from the Greek and Syriac Fathers? We either accept what they said and did or try to retcon it to suit Latin prejudice. As for the report Allatius believed it to be Patriarch Michael Anchialus. Moraites thought it was
Patriarch Michael Cerullarius. St Simeon the Theologian states: "...that which is in the chalice in the Liturgy of the Presanctified is consecrated not by the calling down the Holy Spirit and the sealing, but by the sharing and union with the Life-creating bread, which is in truth the Body of Christ in union with the Blood."

There is also the rubric that in giving the Holy Gifts to the people we say: "The servant of God partakes of precious, most holy, and most pure Body of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins and life everlasting. Amen." Omitting "Blood". Which is unusual since according to the theology of concomitance you receive both Body and Blood even if you receive under one sign only. They didn't even Latinize consistently.

The pre-VCII Latins gave communion with the formula: Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life. And, at ablutions, Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et Sanguis quem potavi, May Your Body, Lord, which I have eaten, and Your Blood which I have drunk. This certainly did not preclude concomitance.

Likewise in the Byzantine liturgy, for deacon and priest:

The precious and most holy Body of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to [me (Name) the priest]/[the pious deacon (Name)], for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life.

(He then partakes of/gives the sacred Bread.)

The precious and most holy Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me (Name) the priest]/[the pious deacon (Name)], for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life.

(He then drinks/gives from the holy Cup.

Hardly the case that "They didn't even Latinize consistently" -- but not at all, it appears.

The opinion of one church father, or several or even a patristic consensus does not necessarily or automatically express the teaching of the Church. And NO, we do not just accept what they say for as Catholics our theology and dogma, though it can be articulated differently, is informed by both East and West, Oriental and Occidental belief. If there is a prejudice here it is in discarding what is a Western/Latin articulation of dogma as though IT was automatically synonymous with "prejudice."

Contact transformation is unnecessary, there is no need or reason to invoke it. I think it is spurious theology, not worthy of belief, and incompatible with Catholic dogma, but I am open to being informed otherwise or presented a more nuanced explanation.

The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is meant to be a concession to the needs of the people during Lent, a form of spiritual sustenance for them at a time when the Eucharist is not available to them during the week. As such, it is not to be conflated with the full celebration of the Eucharist, and reception under one species in the Presanctified (to say nothing of the use of presanctified Gifts in the first place) should be considered the exception, not the rule.

Think of it as field rations while on campaign, as opposed to the banquet in which one will partake upon returning home. Just as MREs or C-rations have everything you need to survive, but are not satisfying in themselves, so the Presanctified Gifts have everything you need but do not fully satisfy the desire to partake of Christ's Body and Blood through the Divine Liturgy.

It is one thing, then, to receive under one species during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, and quite another to receive presanctified Gifts during the Eucharistic Liturgy itself. That is an abuse that must be eliminated, no matter how "inconvenient" it might prove to the clergy. Similarly, to receive under one species during the Eucharistic Liturgy (except for unusual circumstances, such as a person who cannot consume wheat gluten, or a person who is alcoholic or allergic to wine (or an infant who cannot consume solid food) is both an abuse and a radical innovation, a departure from the Apostolic Tradition that must needs be eliminated even when it has been hallowed by custom.

If so then far worse is an excessive discipline that can virtually disenfranchise the faithful from communion -- under any species!

In the local Latin rite parish in my community the cup is offered at every Mass, yet it is quite amazing just how few avail themselves of what should be the norm. I've asked in puzzlement; they just don't want to drink from a cup that others drink from. The elder parishioners seem more inclined to receive from the cup than younger. You can't force people; what are you going to do?

Well, I know the Diocese of Cleveland ordered all our parishes to have ministers of the chalices as well as the hosts... So at least around here things have been quite traditional.

You have deacons to hold the Chalice. No need for EEMs at all. I hate T-Ball Liturgy (everybody plays, everybody gets an at bat). I've been in Latin Churches where the EEMs outnumbered the communicants.

I've been receiving from a spoon that's been in the mouth of little kids with snotty noses and old people who like to gum it a bit before letting go, and I haven't caught any loathsome disease yet.

And what excessive discipline would that be?

If that's the case, then why didn't they just shoo back the excess EEMs to their pews?

Because it's T-ball. No matter what, there MUST be six EEMs--three men, three women, two white, two black, two Hispanic. That's how they demonstrate "inclusiveness". In the meanwhile, the priest AND the deacon can sit down and take a well-earned rest.

Eastern and Oriental Churches (whether Catholic or Orthodox)normally only have one DL or Mass for the Lord's Day, while Latin Catholics have many Masses. From what I've read of Latin Catholic theology on the matter, all the Sacrifices on the Lord's Day is Sacramentally ONE Sacrifice.

So there is a practical difference, not a theological one, AFAIK.

Blessings,
Marduk