www.byzcath.org
Posted By: Thanos888 Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 04/30/13 07:15 PM
Peace of Christ to you all,

I have a small question concerning the Holy Communion in the Catholic Church?

I have attended several liturgies in the Catholic Church where I was given the Holy Blood during the Communion.

However, in other liturgies, this was never given. Why are there such inconsistencies? Why in certain Churches is the Blood given and in others its not?

Furthermore, I'd like to understand why the Holy Body we partake of in the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the same that was prayed on during the Liturgy? why is that?

I have seen this many many times, and I'm sure you must have too:
The Holy Body we partake of in the Catholic Church (i.e. the congregation) are not from the same element that the priest eats. Why is that?

Thank you
Posted By: Lester S Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 02:49 AM
I never thought about this, honestly; and would like to know, as well smile I'm rather used to partaking of the same eucharist, as it's done in the Eastern Churches.
Quote
Why in certain Churches is the Blood given and in others its not?

Just addressing this point - Catholic theology acknowledges either element in the appearance of wine or bread to be be a perfect whole and complete communion that IS the body & blood of Christ. Although the appearance might lend well to imagining the host to be "the body" and the wine to be "the blood" this would NOT be in line with Catholic theology. To partake in either form is to have a complete communion.
Posted By: lmier Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 07:53 AM
The question of receiving the consecrated hosts from the same mass has been an issue in the Roman Church for some time. The General instructions of the Roman Missal state that it should be a priority that people receive from the same sacrifice. However , the over consecration of particles at any one mass forces the use of elements consecrated a different mass to prevent corruption of the bread. The logic that was taught to me in my youth about receiving under one species was, “You cannot have a living body without blood, since this is truly the risen living Lord it must have both the body and blood present in it.”
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 09:05 AM
Quote
However , the over consecration of particles at any one mass forces the use of elements consecrated a different mass to prevent corruption of the bread.

This is an horrendous liturgical and sacramental abuse. I'm surprised anyone would defend it. As for receiving under one species only, it was adopted by the Latin Church in the 12th century for spurious pastoral reasons, and one of its unfortunate consequences (aside from mutilating the the mystagogical symbolism of the Eucharist and widening the division between clergy and laity) was the end of infant communion and the effective excommunication of children under the age of seven.
Posted By: ajk Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 10:22 AM
Originally Posted by StuartK
[As for receiving under one species only, it was adopted by the Latin Church in the 12th century for spurious pastoral reasons,...
In the Liturgy of the Presanctified all receive only the one consecrated species, bread. Only extra liturgical "Lambs," that is bread, are consecrated for that liturgy.
Posted By: Cavaradossi Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by StuartK
[As for receiving under one species only, it was adopted by the Latin Church in the 12th century for spurious pastoral reasons,...
In the Liturgy of the Presanctified all receive only the one consecrated species, bread. Only extra liturgical "Lambs," that is bread, are consecrated for that liturgy.

During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
Posted By: ajk Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 11:03 AM
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
That is a highly disputed, and I would say incorrect, point of theology. At least in the Ruthenian Recension, there is no doubt that the rubrics indicate that the deacon and priest receive only the bread.
Posted By: Cavaradossi Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 12:10 PM
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
That is a highly disputed, and I would say incorrect, point of theology. At least in the Ruthenian Recension, there is no doubt that the rubrics indicate that the deacon and priest receive only the bread.

It is an innovation. The belief that the blood is not consecrated can only be traced back to the time of Peter Mogila, while the belief that the blood is consecrated by contact with the Lamb is far more ancient. Furthermore, the rubrics before the time of Peter Mogila make absolutely no mention of not communing from the chalice.
Posted By: Thanos888 Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 05:39 PM
This is very odd to be reading these statements.

In the Orthodox Church, we respect the Mosaic Laws and Rituals where the sacrifice had to be completely consumed. Nothing should be left over. I see that in the Roman Catholic Church that this ecclesiological , or sacramental ritual, is not really understood or enforced the same as the Orthodox then?

Secondly, if you are saying that both the Holy Blood & the Holy Body should be consumed then why isn't that the case? Why is there disagreement over this within the Church? Who is correct?

Finally, a small question:

Do you partake of the Divine Holy Body, or of the Life Giving Holy Body, in the Roman Catholic Church?

Thanks
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
That is a highly disputed, and I would say incorrect, point of theology. At least in the Ruthenian Recension, there is no doubt that the rubrics indicate that the deacon and priest receive only the bread.

"Thus in the 'Report to Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch' we read:
... the Holy Bread which had been presanctified and made perfect earlier is placed in the mystical chalice, and the wine contained in it is transformed into the Holy Blood of our Lordand is recognized as having been changed" (Uspensky, Eveving Worship, pp 148-149).

I would say that rubric is one of the last Latinizations remaining in the Ruthenian Recension.










Posted By: ajk Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/01/13 07:02 PM
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
That is a highly disputed, and I would say incorrect, point of theology. At least in the Ruthenian Recension, there is no doubt that the rubrics indicate that the deacon and priest receive only the bread.

"Thus in the 'Report to Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch' we read:
... the Holy Bread which had been presanctified and made perfect earlier is placed in the mystical chalice, and the wine contained in it is transformed into the Holy Blood of our Lordand is recognized as having been changed" (Uspensky, Eveving Worship, pp 148-149).

I would say that rubric is one of the last Latinizations remaining in the Ruthenian Recension.
A practice informed by the west does not automatically make it a latinization. What of the theology of the liturgy? Do you subscribe to such contact transformation? What is the dogmatic force of a 'Report to Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch'? By whom?
1. The Orthodox reserve the Holy Gifts too. The large size of many Roman Catholic parishes often requires presanctified Gifts to be distributed so they don't run out.

2. What the poster was saying was that whether one receives unde the sign of bread only, or the sign of wine only, one receives the entire Body and Blood of Christ.

3. Both.
Posted By: ConstantineTG Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/02/13 04:37 PM
When the Lamb is reserved, the priest cuts a cross on top and pours in a little amount of wine/Precious Blood. So whether you believe the unconsecrated wine is consecrated or not by comingling with the Lamb, the Lamb is still reserved with the Precious Blood, so you receive both at the Presanctified Liturgy.
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
When the Lamb is reserved, the priest cuts a cross on top and pours in a little amount of wine/Precious Blood. So whether you believe the unconsecrated wine is consecrated or not by comingling with the Lamb, the Lamb is still reserved with the Precious Blood, so you receive both at the Presanctified Liturgy.

Not all priests do this nor is this the original practice.
Posted By: Epiphanius Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/02/13 04:53 PM
Originally Posted by A Simple Sinner
Originally Posted by Thanos888
Why in certain [RC] Churches is the Blood given and in others its not?
Just addressing this point - Catholic theology acknowledges either element in the appearance of wine or bread to be be a perfect whole and complete communion that IS the body & blood of Christ ... To partake in either form is to have a complete communion.
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
Originally Posted by ajk
A practice informed by the west does not automatically make it a latinization. What of the theology of the liturgy? Do you subscribe to such contact transformation? What is the dogmatic force of a 'Report to Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch'? By whom?

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."

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
That is a highly disputed, and I would say incorrect, point of theology. At least in the Ruthenian Recension, there is no doubt that the rubrics indicate that the deacon and priest receive only the bread.

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.
Posted By: ajk Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 08:25 AM
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
During the presanctified we receive under both species. The mingling of the lamb with the unconsecrated wine consecrates the wine.
That is a highly disputed, and I would say incorrect, point of theology. At least in the Ruthenian Recension, there is no doubt that the rubrics indicate that the deacon and priest receive only the bread.

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.

Posted By: ajk Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 08:51 AM
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by ajk
A practice informed by the west does not automatically make it a latinization. What of the theology of the liturgy? Do you subscribe to such contact transformation? What is the dogmatic force of a 'Report to Emperor of the Ecumenical Patriarch'? By whom?

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."
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.

Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 11:46 AM
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.
Posted By: ajk Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 12:32 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
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!
Posted By: Utroque Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 03:59 PM
Originally Posted by StuartK
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.

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?
Posted By: 8IronBob Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 04:23 PM
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.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 11:49 PM
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.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 11:51 PM
Quote
I've asked in puzzlement; they just don't want to drink from a cup that others drink from.
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.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/03/13 11:52 PM
Quote
If so then far worse is an excessive discipline that can virtually disenfranchise the faithful from communion -- under any species!

And what excessive discipline would that be?
Posted By: Lester S Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/04/13 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by StuartK
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.


If that's the case, then why didn't they just shoo back the excess EEMs to their pews?
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/04/13 08:57 AM
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.
Posted By: mardukm Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/11/13 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by Thanos888
I have seen this many many times, and I'm sure you must have too:
The Holy Body we partake of in the Catholic Church (i.e. the congregation) are not from the same element that the priest eats. Why is that?
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
Posted By: mardukm Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/11/13 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by Thanos888
I have attended several liturgies in the Catholic Church where I was given the Holy Blood during the Communion.

However, in other liturgies, this was never given. Why are there such inconsistencies? Why in certain Churches is the Blood given and in others its not?
Only the symbolic signification is different. However, Sacramentally, there is no difference, since the Latins teach that EACH element contains BOTH elements according to Scripture - "Whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup unworthily will be guilty of the body AND blood of the Lord." (I Cor 11:27).

So when Latins take EITHER the bread OR wine, they do believe they are partaking of the Body AND Blood.

Theologically, all the Churches are in agreement that it is necessary to partake of the Body AND Blood. So we all have the same Faith on this matter, though its local expression may vary.

Blessings,
Marduk
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/11/13 07:46 PM
I have to say that the Markdum's statement is an unexpected endorsement of the kind of hylomorphic sacramentology that the Catholic Church has been working so hard to jettison over the last 75 years. Everybody recognizes that the suppression of the Chalice in the 12th century was done for spurious pastoral reasons that had no theological foundation and also represented a radical break in the Tradition of the undivided Church (the emanations and penumbras of which have caused further deformation of the Tradition). However you slice it, the practice of offering the Eucharist under just one species is an intolerable abuse that should be suppressed universally, no matter that certain bishops may object.
Posted By: 8IronBob Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/11/13 07:58 PM
Well. One thing I've noticed, now that bishops are requiring parishes to have ministers for both the hosts and for the chalice now, is that even though the Blood of Christ is there, a lot of communicants tend to receive the body, but ignore the chalice's existence, which I find disrespectful. I mean, if it's there, you are called upon to take both the body AND blood when you are in that line. It just seems that most just...I dunno. Not to mention that there are people that actually leave Church after Communion instead of returning to their pew, praying, and staying until the priest dismisses everyone, which I also find very disrespectful. Sad times indeed.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/12/13 12:30 PM
Poor catechesis is the cause; indifferent bishops are to blame.
Posted By: JDC Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/13/13 03:48 AM
Originally Posted by StuartK
...T-Ball Liturgy (everybody plays, everybody gets an at bat). I've been in Latin Churches where the EEMs outnumbered the communicants.

This is it. And this is why the practice has been, since reintroduction, widely rejected by the laity: we don't want to play their stupid game. I assure you that if a priest were offering communion by intinction, the laity would immediately and joyfully embrace it.
Posted By: mardukm Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/13/13 06:52 AM
I disagree somewhat. There was a valid theological foundation for depriving the chalice - the utraquist controversy. I believe that was a valid, exceptional circumstance. It became abuse when, even beyond the controversy, it became the norm.

I do not agree with your statement that the practice of offering the Eucharist in one kind is an "intolerable abuse," since communion under one kind obviously was practiced in the early Church, and is practiced today in all the Churches. Of course, this practice is limited to exceptional circumstances. What is problematic (indeed, horrendous) is the rationale that since we can find instances of communion under one kind in the ancient Church, then there is nothing wrong with making communion under one kind the norm in all circumstances. The fact is, communion under one kind was always done only in exceptional circumstances. To make communion under one kind the norm when no exceptional circumstance exists is no doubt an horrendous abuse.

Blessings,
Marduk

Originally Posted by StuartK
I have to say that the Markdum's statement is an unexpected endorsement of the kind of hylomorphic sacramentology that the Catholic Church has been working so hard to jettison over the last 75 years. Everybody recognizes that the suppression of the Chalice in the 12th century was done for spurious pastoral reasons that had no theological foundation and also represented a radical break in the Tradition of the undivided Church (the emanations and penumbras of which have caused further deformation of the Tradition). However you slice it, the practice of offering the Eucharist under just one species is an intolerable abuse that should be suppressed universally, no matter that certain bishops may object.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/13/13 02:13 PM
The Utraquist controversy was the 15th century reaction on the part of Jan Huss and other proto-reformers to the ongoing Latin practice of administering communion under one species. Their motto of sub utroque species (under both species) was a call to return to the apostolic norm. The Latin Church normally administered communion under both species until the 11th-12th centuries, when a fear of profanation by spilling led to the removal of the Chalice from the laity--for which there was no theological foundation at all. This led, coincidentally, to the suppression of infant communion i the West (because infants cannot accept solid food, they could only receive the Sacred Blood, therefore, when the Chalice was withdrawn from the laity, infant communion ended). This in turn led to the development of pernicious theories about the "age of reason", which in turn led to various heretical attacks on infant baptism.

Just because an abuse becomes hallowed by time does not make it any less of an abuse, and we should strive constantly to cut through the fog of our pious myths. Communion under one species was never the norm, anywhere, until the Middle Ages in the West. We should never accept it as the norm today, anywhere. We have recognized the error and should have moved beyond it.

If you read closely my posts on this thread, you will see that I covered exception cases for reception under one species (whether body or blood). I was not referring to those when I call communion under one species an intolerable abuse.
Posted By: Epiphanius Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/14/13 11:57 AM
Originally Posted by 8IronBob
Well. One thing I've noticed, now that bishops are requiring parishes to have ministers for both the hosts and for the chalice now, is that even though the Blood of Christ is there, a lot of communicants tend to receive the body, but ignore the chalice's existence ...
Originally Posted by StuartK
Poor catechesis is the cause ...
You could call it "poor" catechesis, but you might also say it's actually very *good* catechesis--in the sense of the message actually getting across--based on rather *poor* theology.

I can certainly attest that, prior to Vatican II, RC catechesis on the Eucharist emphasized such statements as:
  • Equally present under both species
  • The entire Christ is received in either form
  • Either species contains both the Body and the Blood
In the post-Vatican II period, the emphasis seemed to shift almost entirely to the Eucharist as "communal meal," along with an emphasis on the fact that a meal usually involves both eating and drinking. This was also generally understood to mean a celebration that was man-centered rather than God-centered; a celebration of "the divine element within man," rather than worship of a transcendent God. Not surprisingly, this led to a lot of people--including priests and bishops--conflating Communion from the chalice with an implicit denial of the "true presence."

Since then, the emphasis seems to have shifted back again, which in most cases means a return to the pre-Vatican II theology.
In other words, Communion from the chalice remains, as far as many RCs are concerned, both redundant and unnecessary--not to mention less than hygenic.

This, brethren, is what I believe to be the reality we have to deal with.


Peace,
Deacon Richard
Posted By: Pavloosh Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/14/13 06:57 PM
Amazing! Those of the Latin Rite are afraid to drink from the chalice because of hygienic concerns? Well, do they really believe there are germs on the Real Presence?
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/15/13 03:55 PM
Have you ever seen the way their deacons scrub away at the reliquary after each person kisses it? Definite germ phobia going on there. Laymen have cooties, you know.
Posted By: 8IronBob Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/15/13 04:12 PM
Well, then how about us that have to receive the body and blood off the same spoon and chalice during Communion? Would there be hygienic concerns there, too? I'm sure most priests and deacons are trained well enough to clean the spoon off before scooping up another cube of bread for the next person in line. That's another reason for those red cloths besides catching anything from falling.
Originally Posted by 8IronBob
Well, then how about us that have to receive the body and blood off the same spoon and chalice during Communion? Would there be hygienic concerns there, too? I'm sure most priests and deacons are trained well enough to clean the spoon off before scooping up another cube of bread for the next person in line. That's another reason for those red cloths besides catching anything from falling.

'scuse me ???? shocked shocked shocked shocked


That is something I've never seen and I most certainly hope I never do
Posted By: Cavaradossi Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/16/13 05:36 AM
Originally Posted by 8IronBob
Well, then how about us that have to receive the body and blood off the same spoon and chalice during Communion? Would there be hygienic concerns there, too? I'm sure most priests and deacons are trained well enough to clean the spoon off before scooping up another cube of bread for the next person in line. That's another reason for those red cloths besides catching anything from falling.

I've literally never seen any priest do such a thing.
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/16/13 09:11 AM
Neither have I, and as an altar server, I have frequently held the cloth while communion was being distributed. I've seen little kids with yellow elevens take the spoon right into their mouths, and old people gum the spoon so hard the priest has to pull it out. We never wipe, and, just as interesting, we don't have epidemics, either. So, take your pick: the ascetic properties of the Wine kills germs; or the miraculous power of the Eucharist protects us from infection; or our constant exposure to pathogens has bolstered our immune systems. No matter what, we aren't concerned, and we would never follow the practice of some Latin bishops of directing their priests to withhold the Chalice during flu season.
Posted By: 8IronBob Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/16/13 05:45 PM
Yeah, okay, maybe I was overexagerrating there, you're right...maybe this hasn't been done. But at the same time, there should be some sanitary issues involved with receiving either by chalice or by spoon, maybe not by wiping, even though in the RC, with the Blood of Christ, most ministers do have a towel. However, in terms of receiving by spoon in the Eastern tradition, not sure how that spoon can be sanitized between communicants, that's all I'm saying.
Why are you concerned Bob ?

For the last goodness knows exactly how many years, we have all Received the Body and Blood of Our Lord God and Saviour this way.

Have you ever heard of any huge outbreaks of disease as a result of Receiving in this way ?

Have you seen any Priest or Deacon fall ill after Divine Liturgy after they have consumed what is left in the Chalice ?

How about those Churches where the faithful receive a small amount of wine after Communion - have you seen those people dropping with the onset of infections ? And those cups are not washed after each person has used them.
Posted By: Paul B Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/16/13 08:48 PM
This conversation reminds me of the wipes near the grocery carts.......germs, you know. How many people sanitize the money before putting it in your wallet? It goes through many hands, you know....maybe even drug addicts and pushers....and pimps and prostitutes...and.....
Posted By: StuartK Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/16/13 11:14 PM
Every dollar bill in circulation today has traces of cocaine on it, which is due as much to the velocity of money as it is to the ubiquity of Bolivian Marching Powder.
Posted By: danman916 Re: Catholic Communion - Why no Blood? - 05/17/13 12:34 PM
I have heard that it is due to things like automatic money counting machines that are used at banks. One tainted bill going through it can then taint countless others.
© The Byzantine Forum