have i gone barmy, or is my new Priest unusual in offering wine with the Eucharist at EVERY Mass.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 30, 2003

Answers

answer appreciated before i put my foot in it with the Priest. thanks.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 30, 2003.

Ian

If you ask your priest about offering wine with the Eucharist at every Mass, you will definitely put your foot in it...you are being offered tbe Blood of Christ.

Here we receive the Body and Blood of Christ at every Mass.

God bless

-- sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 30, 2003.

I receive the Body and Blood of My Lord in just the consecrated host.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 30, 2003.

Yes, we receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord at *every* Mass without having to pass around the chalice. That is what I meant to say.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 30, 2003.

its fairly normal to have the blood of Christ offered at each mass, although not manditory. your priest probably comes from a parish where the offering of wine is made every week, and that is acceptable

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 30, 2003.

Its become increaseingly common, but by no means required to offer the blood of Christ at mass. It really in my opinion at this point not a good idea to introduce communion under both species at a parish that only has communion under one species, because for one, more Extraordinary Eucharistic Minsiters will be required, and the Vatican is starting to take issue with too many EEMs being in the sanctuary, and two, and I have seen this all too often, parish' that have a triadtion of communion under both species that switch to 2 usually only have 10% of the communicants at most taking the blood of Christ, so there is the issue of vessel purification after communion.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

the Vatican is starting to take issue with too many EEMs being in the sanctuary

How so?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 30, 2003.

We serve both at our parish on the weekend Masses and I would feel that something were missing if the Eucharist did not include both the body and blood.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 30, 2003.

I would feel that something were missing if the Eucharist did not include both the body and blood.

This is an example of one of the dangers of distributing in both species, (though not the biggest danger by far.) People feel as if something is missing if they are not receiving under both species. Besides the fact, Leon, that you said "if the Eucharist did not include both the body and blood." Surely, you are aware of the fact that Jesus Christ, whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is present in *either species.* You can receive the host by itself, and still have received His Body and Blood.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), April 30, 2003.

Oh, yes, Regina. Ian is left speechless. Tell him that on spelled backward says no. He didn't realise that either.

What he said is the FEELNG it gives him, Regina. It's kind of like the ''feeling'' that overcomes Ed at a Latin Mass. (He can hear the drop of a pin!) These feelings are only feelings, just as all feelings are secondary. No one ever listed the Eucharistic species as separate communions. Not in the Vatican II liturgy; whatever you might expect.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

--Sorry; I meant to write Leon, not Ian.

The Eucharist IS immensely blessed in reception of both the Body and the Blood of Our Lord, Leon; I agree. Despite the truth of what Regina states; that both Body & Blood are given us in single communion of one species, I still find it sad that many people at Mass consume the host and walk right by the cup of Christ's Precious Blood with no interest in drinking. (Everyone has his reasons.) It seems an added sign of my LOVE-- to pay Him the devotion He merits; taking the cup as well. Today might be the last opportunity I'll ever have. No one knows if he/she'll be alive tomorrow.

Precious Blood of Christ-- Inebriate me!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Yes, Christ's body and blood are fully present in both the consecrated wine and bread. In the Tridentine Rite, only the host is disributed to the faithful, so expect to see some straw man thrown up by the schismatics on how terrible offering the Christ's blood to the people is. Personally, I think it's one of the great things about the new rite.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 30, 2003.

Christ offered both Bread and Wine as body and blood, I perfer to take both . . . what could be more traditional than that

LOL

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 30, 2003.

If I were a priest, I would be careful to whom I give the wine, more that to whom I give the bread. Why? First, Jesus celebrated what Jews call a Seder. The bread stood for the sustenance they received when they left Egypt. Every Jew was suppose to partake of the bread.
Exodus 12
On the other hand, the blood from the lamb or goat represented by the wine, stands for the protection God gave the Israelites that when the angel of death passed through their houses ( that is why is called passover), no firstborn would die. The blood now is represented by the red wine. Jesus attaches himself to the meaning of the wine which in essence stands for the blood of the animals being sacrificed: This is my boood, the blood of the new covenant... So Jesus was saying he was offering us salvation from our sins just like the blood from the lambs did for those early Israelites. Luke 22. That is why Saint Paul in i Corinthians gets angry at those corinthians who abuse the wine. They were missing on the message.< a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&versi on=NIV&passage=i+cor+11&x=17&y=5">I cor 22.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@sla.org), April 30, 2003.

On paper I have no problem with communion under both species, but all too often communion under both species is used as a excuse to bring in more EEMs in the sancuary. Yes, the GIRM langauge in the upcoming missal states that all ordained men at mass, be it a priest or a deacon, should make themselves avilable to distribute communion, and not depend on EEMs.

The perferred way of communion under both species, and some of the quasi traditional parish'(they use the Novus Ordo but in a traditional manner) do this is dip the host into the blood for communion, and that solves 3 problems using this method. One, people have to take communion on the tounge, 2, everyone gets communion under both species and 3, far less, if any EEMs are used.

-- John B (rftech10@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

Leon

If you were an alcoholic like me it would be easier for you to accept that Jesus is fully present in just the bread. When I am an EEM who is handing the chalice to the people for communion, I do not drink the wine I am distributing. And when I get to the back room after communion, I tell another EEM that I am an alky and ask him to drink the precious blood for me. I am not going to burn in hell for not drinking alcohol, quite the opposite.

Say a prayer for us alkys sometime please. thanks

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 30, 2003.

Oh, yes, Regina.

What he said is the FEELNG it gives him, Regina

Psst. Gene.

Who are you talking to?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 30, 2003.

LOL!!! Gene, did you see Regina in here? Because I feel bad I missed her and didn't get to say hi.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

Oh Looka Datt!

My apologies, Regina. I can't tell you how sorry, etc., and same to Jack. Oh! Shucks, there I go again! JAKE; the good and humble Jake!!!

(I participate in various quality forums. But not very well today.) Isabel is ROTF kicking her little girl feet!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

I was raised with the impression that there was no seperation between Body and Blood. It was always "Body and Blood" For there to be so much discussion as to whether it is right, one way or the other just strikes me as "in left field" from the real issue. Whether you take only the bread or the bread and the wine . . . you are participating in the paschal sacrifice . . . you are recieving the "true Christ." That is the only issue worth debating in my limited view.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 30, 2003.

Isabel is ROTF kicking her little girl feet!

Amd why shouldn't I be. Nothing wrong with a good doubled-over-laugh once in a while Eugene. You outta try it.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

We as Catholics celerbrate the last supper at every mass, The Lord is sacrified at EVERY mass all but Easter where the Lord is no longer on the cross because he is not on the cross anymore

-- Jacob (flake777@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Isabel,

I'm glad you have a healthy sense of humor. My own problem is I live here in the catacombs underneath the ancient city of Dementia. I also roll on my back laughing when Ed or Regina post. Jake is an acquired taste. Like Braunschweiger.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 30, 2003.

Braunschweiger is nasty. I used to eat it but I lost the taste for it. So braunschweiger is also an unacquired taste. Now, since it is smoked liver, it may be of value to recovered alcoholics like me who need liver replenishment. However, that idea does even entice me to eat it.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 01, 2003.

Jake is an acquired taste. Like Braunschweiger.

Exactly.

Most people HATE Braunschweiger; but the people who like Braunschweiger really like Braunschweiger.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), May 01, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, gang. I want to react to about ten brief sentences and phrases that were used above. I don't want to criticize anyone, and I am not going to mention any names (except in a little joke at the bottom). I am just writing to plead with everyone to make an extra effort to use proper terminology. This is important for the strengthening of one's own Eucharistic faith and (especially) for the teaching of our lurking, non-Catholic visitors, whose theology is not like ours.

QUOTE: I receive the Body and Blood of My Lord in just the consecrated host.
COMMENT: The right term is "consecrated bread." To say "consecrated Host" is redundant. The object, when unconsecrated, is not a "host," but an altar bread. The way to keep this clear is to realize that "Host" [note upper case] comes from the Latin "Hostia," which means "Victim." The Victim/Hostia/Host is Jesus. A mere piece of bread cannot be a Victim.

QUOTEs: (1) the Vatican is starting to take issue with too many EEMs being in the sanctuary (2) How so?
COMMENT: Actually, the Vatican has always been totally against "too many EMEs" -- whether in the sanctuary or not. As their name implies, they have always been "extraordinary," to be used only when truly needed. Sadly, many local pastors (sometimes with lax bishops looking the other way) have ignored this Vatican requirement. This abuse of EMEs has been reported many times to the Vatican, which first counted on bishops to undo it, but gradually decided to take a more active hand (via stronger statements) to combat it.

From a 1980 Vatican instruction: "The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave the task to the laity.

From a 1997 Vatican instruction: "The canonical discipline concerning Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. ... Extraordinary Ministers may distribute Holy Communion at Eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.) They may also exercise this function at Eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. ... To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants ...
— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of 'a great number of the faithful.'"

From a 2003 papal document: "All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. ... Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, late in 2002, published norms to be followed by EMEs. If followed, these would eliminate most of the improprieties that most of us have witnessed.

QUOTE: your priest probably comes from a parish where the offering of wine is made every week, and that is acceptable
COMMENT: It is no longer "wine" when offered to communicants. We refer to it as "consecrated wine" or the "Precious Blood" or the "Blood of Christ" (though every drop is actually the Body and Blood of Jesus, whole and entire).

QUOTE: Christ offered both Bread and Wine as body and blood ...
COMMENT: Christ offered mere bread and wine, which became his Body and Blood. The priest (in the person of Christ) now does the same.

QUOTE: If I were a priest, I would be careful to whom I give the wine, more that to whom I give the bread.
COMMENT: There's no need to be careful about giving "wine" or "bread" to anyone. (Protestant ministers give their "bread" and "wine" to anyone who wishes to have it.) But there is great need to be careful about giving the Eucharistic Species, the consecrated wine and consecrated bread, the Body and Blood of Jesus.

QUOTE: That is why Saint Paul in I Corinthians gets angry at those corinthians who abuse the wine.
COMMENT: St. Paul is speaking against the abuse of mere wine that caused drunkenness in some people before they came to Mass.

QUOTE: some of the quasi traditional parish[es] ... dip the host into the blood for communion, and that solves 3 problems ... [1], people have to take communion on the tongue, 2, everyone gets communion under both species and 3, far less, if any EEMs are used.
COMMENT: This "Communion by intinction," as it is called, is fine. However, pastors must take care also to have a minister (priest, deacon, acolyte, etc.) who offers the Host alone.

QUOTE: If you were an alcoholic like me it would be easier for you to accept that Jesus is fully present in just the bread. When I am an EEM who is handing the chalice to the people for communion, I do not drink the wine I am distributing.
COMMENT: It is no longer "bread." It is no longer "wine."

QUOTE: Whether you take only the bread or the bread and the wine ...
COMMENT: It is no longer "bread." It is no longer "wine."

QUOTE: The Lord is sacrified at EVERY mass all but Easter where the Lord is no longer on the cross because he is not on the cross anymore.
COMMENT: The Lord is not newly sacrificed at any Mass. Rather, the one and only sacrifice of Calvary becomes present to us in an unbloody manner, and its offering to God the Father is renewed. This happens on Easter and on every other day of the year except Good Friday.

QUOTE: Jake is an acquired taste. Like Braunschweiger. COMMENT: I love braunschweiger (with ketchup), which we called "gooseliver" when I was working in my grandparent's ma-and-pa delicatessen around 1959. I'm still trying to find out if I can acquire a taste for Jake!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

John

QUOTE: If you were an alcoholic like me it would be easier for you to accept that Jesus is fully present in just the bread. When I am an EEM who is handing the chalice to the people for communion, I do not drink the wine I am distributing. COMMENT: It is no longer "bread." It is no longer "wine."

Thank you for the correction. I know we ought to revere the Eucharist with proper terms. However the precious blood is under the accident of wine. It will still get you drunk if ingested in large quantities. And so using the term wine helped make my point regarding alcoholism without disrespecting the sacrament. Also I said "fully present in the bread" in order to make the point that it was consecrated bread. I don't think the terminology was misleading. St. Paul uses the term bread in the same manner here:

1 Cor 11:27 says, Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

Only consecrated bread could be eaten unworthily however Paul calls it just bread because the context explained it fully. Likewise I imagine most everyone posting understood the meaning of our references to "bread" and "wine". Paul did not say "whoever, therefore eats the consecrated bread..." Granted that the theology of the Eucharist was not spelled out at Paul's time but he certainly was exact in his terminology in general and he converted millions.

Sometimes it is OK to be less exacting.

Like peace bro

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 02, 2003.

Remember the parable of Jesus about old wine and new wine Jake? Do you think John G gets it? Which tastes better?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 03, 2003.

Mike, May God bless you with sobriety! Stay clean. You seem to be doing well, and I doubt that anyone would say that you are not. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), May 04, 2003.

It's acceptable to refer to the Eucharist as 'The Bread of Life' but we normally wouldn't refer to just the Bread.

Jesus said:

'In all truth I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, it is my Father who gives you the bread from heaven, the true bread; for the bread of God is the bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

'Sir,' they said, 'give us that bread always,' Jesus answered them:

I am the bread of life'

(John 6: 32:36)

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 04, 2003.

Amen, Sara! Thank you for that.

I recall posting a very similar kind of message (to the one I posted above) about two years ago, when there were several references to "bread" and "wine" in another discussion about the Blessed Sacrament. Then, as now, the subject of St. Paul's language came up. I recommended that, if people were writing and really insisted on using the two words of "appearance," they should at least use upper case -- "Bread" and "Wine," to alert the reader to the fact that one is writing about something that is not really bread and wine any longer. However, if a person is speaking (not writing), then he/she has a duty, in my opinion, to use clearer language -- e.g., "consecrated bread/wine" or "the Body and Blood of Christ" or "the Sacred Species" -- because the upper-case "B" and "W" cannot be seen in the spoken word!

What about St. Paul's words? Yes, from the context, we can see that he is not speaking about mere bread, so no one can fault him. He was also speaking to people whom he had catechized -- who knew that Jesus, no longer bread, was present. But we, when we mistakenly write/say "bread" and "wine," are usually not communicating only with well-catechized people. For example, here at the forum, I think that we should make an extra effort, so that non-Catholic lurkers know that we truly believe that we are not eating bread and drinking wine.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

So, what's the answer? Can I still continue to worship unashamedly in my parish where we always consume both the body and blood?

Or would you rather I feel guilty about that too?

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 05, 2003.

Leon,

There's absolutely no problem whatosever with you receiving the Eucharist under both species.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 05, 2003.

super answers all around. thank you all.

just one thing that i might wish to add and that's that a protestant, were he to venture into a Catholic Mass, might be confused by the priest when he says "Body of Christ" when offering the "consecrated bread". he does not say "Body and Blood of Christ". just "Body of Christ".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 05, 2003.

Jmj

Funny you should mention that, Ian. It made me recall that I raised a similar point on the other thread (a year or two ago). We know that Jesus is present, whole and entire, in either Species, but our language does not usually reflect that knowledge.

If we approach the ciborium, the minister says, "The Body of Christ."
If we approach the chalice, the minister says, "The Blood of Christ."
If we receive by intinction, the minister says, "The Body and Blood of Christ."

I can only assume that we are using a "language of appearance," rather than a "language of reality." In other words, there are two consecrations, representing the separation of Jesus's Body from His Blood on Golgotha. Then, later in the Mass, even though we know that we are receiving the risen Lord (who is not divided), we maintain the terminology of "separation" (the "language of appearance"). I am tempted to think that we should not, but the Church knows better than I do, so I turn away from the temptation.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.

John, perhaps we are all trying to dig too deep. Isn't it enough to simply do as Jesus did when he offered the first eucharist. It was a "simply beautiful" institution. I would rather not muddy the waters with thinking that tries to go where Jesus didn't take us.

If my limited memory serves me correct, he first offered the bread, broken and said this is my body, the then turned and offered them the cup with the words of institution, "This is my blood." Do this in memory of me.

Thats all there was and I don't see why we need to take it any further. When you do, it just isn't as "beautiful" any more.

Call me barmy, but that's just the way I see it.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 06, 2003.

I do respect your opinion, Leon, very much. You have a certain wisdom there. Sacred mysteries can be "over-analyzed."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.

I can see the merit of both sides, however, though Church tradition teaches you receive both the body and blood in either one; the actual text seems to point to Him clearly stating them as being separate.

cenantibus autem eis accepit Iesus panem et benedixit ac fregit deditque discipulis suis et ait accipite et comedite hoc est corpus meum et accipiens calicem gratias egit et dedit illis dicens bibite ex hoc omnes hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum

-- Zimrahil Glyndwr (loyal_irulan@yahoo.com), September 30, 2004.