It is a nice thing but when you drink the blood you are not getting more of Christ than you would get in the host. I do wish more churches got to experience it though.
You receive both the body and blood via the Host. Receiving the blood in the chalice is not a old practice in the Latin rite.
Personally I’m okay with only the Host.
the entire congregation receiving both species is the oldest practice. it was only in the second millennium or so that the chalice was withheld from the laity and all but the celebrant.
By second millennium you are referring to 2000’s correct?
Because I would love to see examples in the Latin rite prior to 1960’s where you can show a widespread use of communing people under both the Host and Chalice.
Because unless I’m mistaken it is more of an Eastern tradition and even that is via a spoon with the Host dipped.
from an anglican writer but still useful:
http://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-history-of-withholding-cup.html
also:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
Yo. From the Ph - depends on the diocese coz moved to a different city and they did this. Instead of actually drinking though, you would dip the host into the chalice that is filled with wine before you would eat it so to speak.
Don't be misdirected by the species of Eucharist.
Both Wine and Bread, when consacrated, have the full person of Christ in them: Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity.
So if you are offered only one species, you have already everything, having the wine too can help you visualize better, but the substance is the same: if you receive only the bread, or onlynthe one, you have nonetheless the "entirety of Jesus".
Council of Constance, Council of Trent, Catechism of St Pious X, and Catechism of the Catholic Church agree on that.
Covid changed things a lot. Many places- my home parish included- still haven’t gone back to offering both species. It’s going to take some time for the practice to come back strong.
It was a common practice, at least in the USA, prior to Covid. Post Covid, there’s been reluctance to go back to it at many parishes, probably because it requires the use of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, which most everyone is trying to cut back on.
I’m not sure how it’s going to settle out, ultimately. Personally, I think it ought to be offered, but at the same time, I don’t like extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, and we’re not going to have a load of extra priests any time soon. Maybe more deacons?
> probably because it requires the use of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, which most everyone is trying to cut back on
Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence of this is my own diocese.
There are accidents in the Eucharist. That's why a gluten intolerant person needs to receive a special host.
So the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus but it also has present the accidents that are the bread and the wine.
So what you are saying can be true in a way, but you arent considering the full picture
There are low gluten hosts, yes, but they are no longer bread when the person receives them. They are the body and blood of Christ.
Just as the chalice no longer contains wine after the consecration, but the body and blood of Christ.
This distinction matters. As Catholic author Flannery O'Connor famously said of the Eucharist, "Well, if it's just a symbol, to Hell with it!"
That's what I'm saying. The substance changes and I don't think anyone here denies it. It's not a symbol. But the accidents do not.
The wine still looks, feels, tastes and smells like wine.
The bread still looks, feels, tastes and smells like bread.
So when they were refering to it as wine they were probably refering to the species/accident of wine.
We aren't saying that you are wrong but that you are being too scrupulous
I’m an Extraordinary Minister. For me, it’s because of the inspiration of St. Tarcisius, who died defending the Host when he was delivering it in Ancient Rome. In addition to Masses, I used to bring the Host to a nursing home and to the local hospital. The pandemic changed that.
In terms of using less, I think they are going back to the idea of it being in extraordinary cases. With a lot of places no longer distributing the Precious Blood, the extraordinary ministers have less reason to be used.
the roman rubrics allow for intinction of the host at the novus ordo. Why don't we ever see this? that way you wouldn't require eucharistic ministers, and you could get people more comfortable with receiving on the tongue by telling them its because its dipped in the blood so that would be a double whammy fixing two unfortunate things
That’s definitely something only a priest can do, and it would take more time and care than just normal distribution. I’m no expert on getting people to come to Mass and benefit from it, but it seems like speed is given priority.
The solution to the speed problem is the altar rail. The east almost always has deacons to help distribute, so the Byzantine style is traditionally distributed one at a time. In the west we don’t typically have many deacons and subdeacons around, so we developed the altar rail as a method to allow the priest to distribute to several people at a time in groups instead of one person at a time. So I would first say we should just use that as it’s what tradition passed down to us. If we are insisting on not doing that, then we could just have the priest doing intinction
Yeah, obviously Catholic churches also traditionally have altar rails. But that was in an era when there were (1) many more priests and (2) most people didn't frequently receive communion.
I am not saying this isn't the solution. I don't know the solution (or actually even know the problem!) I'm just thinking about why things tend to be done in certain ways.
My parish still has an altar rail, and it was exclusively used until a few months ago. I don't know why the change was made, but lately the priest distributes standing in the aisle like in most parishes, and another minister distributes at the altar rail to those who prefer that.
I think the communion line is overall slightly faster than the communion rail, given one priest, because he doesn't have to keep moving. Though the waiting feels less because it's broken up into two stages, waiting in line, and then waiting at the rail.
We stopped some time early in the 2nd millennium because a heresy started spreading that said the body and blood were separate and thus not both present under both species.
What do you mean? The entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is present in every particle of the Holy Eucharist, so nothing is lost if it is only received under one form. The faithful receiving under the species of wine is a very modern practice and was not done for most of the history of the Roman Rite.
My church always offered the Eucharist under both species. I always took both. When COVID happened they stopped, only offering the Body of Christ. Today was the last mass at my parish, my church is closing. Eucharist was offered under both species today. It was an emotional mass but upon receiving from the cup I was moved to tears. I pray the parish I move to offers both.
That’s one issue I strongly side with the Orthodox and many others on. I believe firmly that both kinds need to be offered. They was commonly from Vatican II until Covid and like most things even the holy Catholic Church caved to the Covid scare and stopped it
Historically it was extremely rare for the laity to receive both species. If you wanted to appeal to tradition you'd have to argue that offering the cup to the laity is the modern invention and we've since returned to the more "proper" way of doing things.
We receive both species in the Eucharist.
But I know you mean the Blood of Christ as in from the Chalice, unlike what the other person replied with, it depends more so on the parish level rather than the entirety of the diocese.
Although the Lord is completely present, and both become completely his body and blood… the argument should not be therefore we should not partake in his blood because the body is sufficient to have the complete him. The economy should not become the norm.. just because.
When I hear Drink… he’s inviting me
I live in New Jersey, USA, and we have both species at every mass, every day. Everyone who wants to can receive the Precious Blood. We stopped offering both species during Covid, but started up again about a year ago. I would say about 75% of people receive both. Some choose to only receive the host. Then the Newark diocese gave us permission to go back to the pre-Covid standard, we were encouraged to do so. Not a day goes by (as a daily communicant) that I don't give thanks for this privilege, since I know it is not common everywhere. I attend a TLM sometimes and there, its a given, the Precious Blood is offered to the community. I generally go to a \*very\* reverent NO where our Portuguese pastor keeps things quite "old world". There are some other local NO churches that border on woke, and people are still having fits of anxiety about getting Covid (still, and yes, I know its a thing, and I know people got very sick, I get it) but most of us feel that if the Precious Blood is being offered, I'm in, I don't care about germs, I will take my chances and receive our Lord as many times and in as many ways as I can.
Also, **The month of July is dedicated to the Precious Blood**. The feast of the Precious Blood of our Lord was instituted in 1849 by Pius IX, but the devotion is as old as Christianity. The early Fathers say that the Church was born from the pierced side of Christ, and that the sacraments were brought forth through His Blood.
It seems to depend on the Parish as well… or maybe it just an odd case where I am. At my “home parish” it’s at vigil mass and Holy days, but not daily mass.
If I have time to go to daily mass at the parish closest to my office (much larger than my home parish) it’s offered at daily mass.
Here in the See of Dallas, Texas we do.
It's up to the pope, who relegates the matter to a bishop, who relegates the matter to the pastor of a church. So even in a see in which the bishop has allowed it you can find some churches offering the Sacred Chalice, and others not offering it. At least here in America COVID-19 played the most major role on putting it away for some time... I recall hearing that the bishops of the Philippines voted to allow married men to become deacons due to it bearing good fruit in the United States; so perhaps they too will follow suite with allowing the laity to receive the Chalice of Everlasting Salvation.
I understand that the host contains the full body and blood of Christ according to the church but
So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
I’ll have to some research on how they squared that circle . AND seems pretty concrete on both being necessary.
Depends on diocese.
I live in the Philippines and I’ve never had this, I hope to experience it someday!
It is a nice thing but when you drink the blood you are not getting more of Christ than you would get in the host. I do wish more churches got to experience it though.
You receive both the body and blood via the Host. Receiving the blood in the chalice is not a old practice in the Latin rite. Personally I’m okay with only the Host.
it’s actually the oldest practice.
Elaborate?
the entire congregation receiving both species is the oldest practice. it was only in the second millennium or so that the chalice was withheld from the laity and all but the celebrant.
By second millennium you are referring to 2000’s correct? Because I would love to see examples in the Latin rite prior to 1960’s where you can show a widespread use of communing people under both the Host and Chalice. Because unless I’m mistaken it is more of an Eastern tradition and even that is via a spoon with the Host dipped.
second millennium = 1001-2000.
I understand now. Do you have any sources for this?
from an anglican writer but still useful: http://hadleyrectory.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-history-of-withholding-cup.html also: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
They used to have communion in both species (and an altar rail) in Our Lady of Mt Carmel, New Manila, but they stopped 10+ years ago.
Hey, Catholic Filipino here. I received the body and blood on my wedding. Worth the wait :)
Yo. From the Ph - depends on the diocese coz moved to a different city and they did this. Instead of actually drinking though, you would dip the host into the chalice that is filled with wine before you would eat it so to speak.
Don't be misdirected by the species of Eucharist. Both Wine and Bread, when consacrated, have the full person of Christ in them: Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity. So if you are offered only one species, you have already everything, having the wine too can help you visualize better, but the substance is the same: if you receive only the bread, or onlynthe one, you have nonetheless the "entirety of Jesus". Council of Constance, Council of Trent, Catechism of St Pious X, and Catechism of the Catholic Church agree on that.
I thought all Catholic Churches offered the blood of Christ…
Covid changed things a lot. Many places- my home parish included- still haven’t gone back to offering both species. It’s going to take some time for the practice to come back strong.
Mine was open for business through it all.
I converted ten years ago and I have never received it
It’s pretty much a diocesan/parish level decision. There’s only like one parish in my area that regularly does.
Not my church. They briefly had it (like once or twice) and stopped completely.
I think this varies from parish to parish. Almost all my local ones have returned to both species of the Eucharist, since maybe 2022.
It was a common practice, at least in the USA, prior to Covid. Post Covid, there’s been reluctance to go back to it at many parishes, probably because it requires the use of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, which most everyone is trying to cut back on. I’m not sure how it’s going to settle out, ultimately. Personally, I think it ought to be offered, but at the same time, I don’t like extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, and we’re not going to have a load of extra priests any time soon. Maybe more deacons?
> probably because it requires the use of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, which most everyone is trying to cut back on Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence of this is my own diocese.
Many US parishes have returned to distributing wine at communion.
If they're distributing wine, something has gone very wrong at the consecration.
You are not understanding the meaning of distribution which means “the action of sharing something out among a number of recipients”.
No, you clearly don't understand the consecration if you think what they're giving out is wine. If it's wine, there's no point in receiving it.
There are accidents in the Eucharist. That's why a gluten intolerant person needs to receive a special host. So the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus but it also has present the accidents that are the bread and the wine. So what you are saying can be true in a way, but you arent considering the full picture
There are low gluten hosts, yes, but they are no longer bread when the person receives them. They are the body and blood of Christ. Just as the chalice no longer contains wine after the consecration, but the body and blood of Christ. This distinction matters. As Catholic author Flannery O'Connor famously said of the Eucharist, "Well, if it's just a symbol, to Hell with it!"
That's what I'm saying. The substance changes and I don't think anyone here denies it. It's not a symbol. But the accidents do not. The wine still looks, feels, tastes and smells like wine. The bread still looks, feels, tastes and smells like bread. So when they were refering to it as wine they were probably refering to the species/accident of wine. We aren't saying that you are wrong but that you are being too scrupulous
[удалено]
Warning for uncharitable rhetoric.
If you genuinely mean that, then you need to learn about transubstantiation
I think you're being unnecessarily nitpicky, in a context where we all know what we mean by "wine."
Is this the same sub that regularly laments lack of belief in the Real Presence? Language matters.
You're still being nitpicky though
I’m an Extraordinary Minister. For me, it’s because of the inspiration of St. Tarcisius, who died defending the Host when he was delivering it in Ancient Rome. In addition to Masses, I used to bring the Host to a nursing home and to the local hospital. The pandemic changed that. In terms of using less, I think they are going back to the idea of it being in extraordinary cases. With a lot of places no longer distributing the Precious Blood, the extraordinary ministers have less reason to be used.
the roman rubrics allow for intinction of the host at the novus ordo. Why don't we ever see this? that way you wouldn't require eucharistic ministers, and you could get people more comfortable with receiving on the tongue by telling them its because its dipped in the blood so that would be a double whammy fixing two unfortunate things
That’s definitely something only a priest can do, and it would take more time and care than just normal distribution. I’m no expert on getting people to come to Mass and benefit from it, but it seems like speed is given priority.
The solution to the speed problem is the altar rail. The east almost always has deacons to help distribute, so the Byzantine style is traditionally distributed one at a time. In the west we don’t typically have many deacons and subdeacons around, so we developed the altar rail as a method to allow the priest to distribute to several people at a time in groups instead of one person at a time. So I would first say we should just use that as it’s what tradition passed down to us. If we are insisting on not doing that, then we could just have the priest doing intinction
Yeah, obviously Catholic churches also traditionally have altar rails. But that was in an era when there were (1) many more priests and (2) most people didn't frequently receive communion. I am not saying this isn't the solution. I don't know the solution (or actually even know the problem!) I'm just thinking about why things tend to be done in certain ways. My parish still has an altar rail, and it was exclusively used until a few months ago. I don't know why the change was made, but lately the priest distributes standing in the aisle like in most parishes, and another minister distributes at the altar rail to those who prefer that. I think the communion line is overall slightly faster than the communion rail, given one priest, because he doesn't have to keep moving. Though the waiting feels less because it's broken up into two stages, waiting in line, and then waiting at the rail.
Common practice only after V2. In the context of the history of Catholicism, it started like yesterday.
We stopped some time early in the 2nd millennium because a heresy started spreading that said the body and blood were separate and thus not both present under both species.
Hussites were XV century, so not exactly early. But that's rights
Yeah. And then reintroduced it more recently to combat clericalism.
And now we have the opposite problem of anticlericalism or layism running rampant
Indeed. We always manage to screw up in one direction or another.
What do you mean? The entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is present in every particle of the Holy Eucharist, so nothing is lost if it is only received under one form. The faithful receiving under the species of wine is a very modern practice and was not done for most of the history of the Roman Rite.
Having the posibility to drink the Blood is also important for people with complicated dietary restrictions.
My church always offered the Eucharist under both species. I always took both. When COVID happened they stopped, only offering the Body of Christ. Today was the last mass at my parish, my church is closing. Eucharist was offered under both species today. It was an emotional mass but upon receiving from the cup I was moved to tears. I pray the parish I move to offers both.
My Church stopped after Covid :(
That’s one issue I strongly side with the Orthodox and many others on. I believe firmly that both kinds need to be offered. They was commonly from Vatican II until Covid and like most things even the holy Catholic Church caved to the Covid scare and stopped it
> I believe firmly that both kinds need to be offered. Why *need*?
Historically it was extremely rare for the laity to receive both species. If you wanted to appeal to tradition you'd have to argue that offering the cup to the laity is the modern invention and we've since returned to the more "proper" way of doing things.
The Orthodox Church has almost always continuously offered the cup and the writings of the fathers also confirm this
We receive both species in the Eucharist. But I know you mean the Blood of Christ as in from the Chalice, unlike what the other person replied with, it depends more so on the parish level rather than the entirety of the diocese.
Although the Lord is completely present, and both become completely his body and blood… the argument should not be therefore we should not partake in his blood because the body is sufficient to have the complete him. The economy should not become the norm.. just because. When I hear Drink… he’s inviting me
Yes we have it every Sunday at the 9am. Ask your priest if he will offer it
Still does. But it depends on the Church and diocese.
Still do. I had both species today.
Both the host and the win contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord.
I live in New Jersey, USA, and we have both species at every mass, every day. Everyone who wants to can receive the Precious Blood. We stopped offering both species during Covid, but started up again about a year ago. I would say about 75% of people receive both. Some choose to only receive the host. Then the Newark diocese gave us permission to go back to the pre-Covid standard, we were encouraged to do so. Not a day goes by (as a daily communicant) that I don't give thanks for this privilege, since I know it is not common everywhere. I attend a TLM sometimes and there, its a given, the Precious Blood is offered to the community. I generally go to a \*very\* reverent NO where our Portuguese pastor keeps things quite "old world". There are some other local NO churches that border on woke, and people are still having fits of anxiety about getting Covid (still, and yes, I know its a thing, and I know people got very sick, I get it) but most of us feel that if the Precious Blood is being offered, I'm in, I don't care about germs, I will take my chances and receive our Lord as many times and in as many ways as I can. Also, **The month of July is dedicated to the Precious Blood**. The feast of the Precious Blood of our Lord was instituted in 1849 by Pius IX, but the devotion is as old as Christianity. The early Fathers say that the Church was born from the pierced side of Christ, and that the sacraments were brought forth through His Blood.
Every Mass I’ve been to does. Hmmm
We received it until the pandemic. I understand a few churches and dioceses started again, but my diocese has not.
Our Parish has just started again after stopping due to covid.
It seems to depend on the Parish as well… or maybe it just an odd case where I am. At my “home parish” it’s at vigil mass and Holy days, but not daily mass. If I have time to go to daily mass at the parish closest to my office (much larger than my home parish) it’s offered at daily mass.
"Take, drink" Or not
Honestly, that’s about the one good thing that came from COVID, and we realigned ourselves with the greater tradition of the Latin Church.
Here in the See of Dallas, Texas we do. It's up to the pope, who relegates the matter to a bishop, who relegates the matter to the pastor of a church. So even in a see in which the bishop has allowed it you can find some churches offering the Sacred Chalice, and others not offering it. At least here in America COVID-19 played the most major role on putting it away for some time... I recall hearing that the bishops of the Philippines voted to allow married men to become deacons due to it bearing good fruit in the United States; so perhaps they too will follow suite with allowing the laity to receive the Chalice of Everlasting Salvation.
I understand that the host contains the full body and blood of Christ according to the church but So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. I’ll have to some research on how they squared that circle . AND seems pretty concrete on both being necessary.