Is it uncommon for the Precious Blood to not even be offered in any form during Communion?

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004

Answers

It happened when I went to church here in Germany, they didn't even consecrate wine or juice or anything. Only the host was consecrated.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.

Canon Law states:

Can. 924 - The most holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be celebrated in bread, and in wine to which a small quantity of water is to be added.

Canon 927 - It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 12, 2004.

Do you think I should try to find another church to go to?

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.

Cameron..could you more fully expand upon your question? Are you saying that at your Catholic parish the priest consecrates BOTH the bread and the wine, but only the consecrated HOST is offered at Communion? Or are you saying that the priest is only consecrating the bread alone during the mass?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.

I remember in the 60's that bread and wine were of course always consecrated as is required and has always part of every Catholic Mass. However, in the parish I grew up in, only the consecrated host was distributed to parishoners.

In my personal experience, making the wine available to parishoners in addition to the host seemed to have begun more or less frequently in the 70's. Now it seems to be offered to the parish as a part of the Mass at every Catholic church I attend. Though I don't believe it necessarily has to. The bread itself is complete.

However, both bread and wine must be a part of the consecration of the Mass, nothing has changed there. Receiving one, both, or either forms is fine.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 12, 2004.

"...either form is fine." Syntax, syntax, syntax. Please excuse parts of the above, it doesn't read quite right. I left my syntax rules at the door along with my spelling.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 12, 2004.

No, only the host was consecrated during Mass. And I thought that wine wasn't offered, but now that I look back, I remember when people walked in, they took the host and put it in some liquid (holy water or wine, I wasn't sure). And when my mom was a kid, the host and wine were mixed together. But putting unconsecrated host into holy water or wine doesn't make sense, does it?

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.

BTW, it's not my normal parish, just one I decided to try to go to while I'm here in Germany. My parish at home is great!

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 12, 2004.

Cameron, all this sounds most ABnormal. Are you sure it’s a Catholic church? The bread and the wine are always BOTH consecrated in the Eucharistic Prayer of a Catholic Mass. Consecrated Hosts or unconsecrated wafers would never be put in water in a Catholic ceremony. The only time a Catholic would put the Host into the consecrated wine (Precious Blood) is when the priest or communion minister dips a host in the Precious Blood immediately before administering it, in the relatively rare occasions where Communion is given by Intinction. A person other than a priest or communion minister may never dip the Host in the Precious Blood.

There are some Catholic churches where the custom is to leave a plate of unconsecrated wafers on a table by the door, and as people come in for Mass they each put a wafer into the ciborium (a metal container like a wide chalice with a lid) if they intend to go to Communion, so that there are not too many or too few breads consecrated for the congregation. The ciborium of wafers is taken up to the priest, often together with the wine, at the Procession of the Gifts. There may have been a chalice of wine on the table next to the ciborium, and maybe some people accidentally put a wafer into the chalice instead of into the ciborium?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 13, 2004.

Yes, I'm sure it was Catholic. Besides there being no Precious Blood, Mass was celebrated almost identical to my parish at home.

"There may have been a chalice of wine on the table next to the ciborium, and maybe some people accidentally put a wafer into the chalice instead of into the ciborium?"

That's possible, or maybe it looked to me like they were putting the wafers in the wine, since the ciborium was right next to it. But there was still no wine consecrated during Mass.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

Cameron, go back again next week and pay close attention. Perhaps ask the priest about it afterward if you notice the same thing. Maybe you missed it or maybe they forgot? I don't know how they could forget something like that though...

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 13, 2004.

Cameron, are you sure it was a Roman Catholic Church? That being said, perhaps Father concecrated wine for himself, but didn't offer it to the congregation? Or he did, but the chalice was first taken to any of the handicap people?

Ex: at my parish, we have more than one cup. But there is a person who takes the host & wine to the handicap people, but then returns to the middle of the line if there are still parishioners waiting for host/wine &/or goes to the front of the church.

The only particularily 'odd' habit our church fell into, was when we had a germ phobic priest, who insisted on using a separate chalice for himself at the altar than the rest of the congregation (which I found very rude.)

At one time, to cut down on the spread of germs, it was allowed for the parishioners to dip the host into the chalice, but it's been discouraged.

The only other guestimations I have, are there truely wasn't any wine, because the had an emergency shortage. It was a special service peculiar to that parish/town/day for advent? & last but not least perhaps it was because it's the Year of the Eucharist?

But like the others have said. I don't recall there not being wine offered to the Parish very often. Except for other faiths..though even then they'll have grape juice instead of wine. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In an effort to include all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (blahblah@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.

Dorian, sorry if this sounds picky, but try not to say simply “wine” when speaking of what WAS wine and still appears to be wine but is now “consecrated wine” i.e. the Precious Blood of Christ.

“At one time, to cut down on the spread of germs, it was allowed for the parishioners to dip the host into the chalice, but it's been discouraged.”

No, this has never been officially “allowed”, although it had crept in as an abuse in some places. And it spreads MORE germs. (Hands have many more germs than lips. Germs from the many hands which have handled the Hosts go into the consecrated wine when each communicant “dips” the Host. In contrast when people drink from the chalice, the germs are wiped off the rim of the chalice and the chalice is rotated after each communicant. ) Recent documents have clarified even more strongly that it is forbidden, for liturgical, sacramental, practical and hygienic reasons. Communion is administered TO each communicant, it is not “self-serve” or dip your own.

I believe there is provision in extremely rare circumstances (eg in a remote arctic outpost where all supplies of wine ran out on a particular Sunday and more wine CANNOT be obtained) to say Mass without wine, but I’m sure this would not happen in Germany. And it certainly would not happen just because of Advent or some local event, and definitely not to mark the year of the Eucharist!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 15, 2004.

Steve,

I guess you misunderstood the idea behind cut down on the spread of germs. I should have been more specific. To minimize the contamination of the chalice by any diseases that are carried in bodily fluids. In this case Saliva and Blood that could be from any open sores in ones mouth. Not to mention viruses & other infections that can be spread by careless parishoners who know they have a cold, or TB ect..but drink from the chalice.

There are readers of many faiths on this Cathoic Forums board. I choose to go for laymans terms whenever possible to make my explinations more accessable to readers of any faith.

Precious Blood to others is specifically non-alcoholic, for Roman Catholics it's wine from grape that has been concecrated by the priest.

When God has a problem with my verbology I'm certain he'll let me know. Until that time, stop 'telling' others. Specifially 'me' what to do, or think. It's rude. Especially when you're only 'guessing' the reasons why as well.

And though not 'officially sanctioned' it wasn't officially discouraged until recently. I do remember people in some of the parishes I've attended 'dipping' thier host into the chalice.

Last but not least, you don't have to be in the Australian Outback to have a wine shortage. I could happen if a church had more people arrive than usual, and they hadn't purchased/ or gotten thier new wine shippment.

Some Roman Catholic parishes only offer hosts to the parishoners. Wine being offered is recent. And sometimes only reserved or not used for special occasions.

This should clear up how it's administered and recieved & how: (b) The minster of administration

The dogmatic interest which attaches to the minister of administration or distribution is not so great, for the reason that the Eucharist being a permanent sacrament, any communicant having the proper dispositions could receive it validly, whether he did so from the hand of a priest, or layman, or woman. Hence,the question is concerned, not with the validity, but with the liceity of administration. In this matter the Church alone has the right to decide, ,and her regulations regarding the Communion rite may vary according to the circumstances of the times. In general it is of Divine right, that the laity should as a rule receive only from the consecrated hand of the priest (cf. Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. viii). The practice of the laity giving themselves Holy Communion was formerly, and is today, allowed only in case of necessity. In ancient Christian times it was customary for the faithful to take the Blessed Sacrament to their homes and Communicate privately, a practice (Tertullian, Ad uxor., II, v), to which, even as late as the fourth century, St. Basil makes reference (Ep. xciii, ad Cæsariam). Up to the ninth century, it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host in the right hand of the recipient, who kissed it and then transferred it to his own mouth; women, from the fourth century onward, were required in this ceremony to have a cloth wrapped about their right hand. The Precious Blood was in early times received directly from the Chalice, but in Rome the practice, after the eighth century, was to receive it through a small tube (fistula); at present this is observed only in the pope's Mass. The latter method of drinking the Chalice spread to other localities, in particular to the Cistercian monasteries, where the practice was partially continued into the eighteenth century.

Whereas the priest is both by Divine and ecclesiastical right the ordinary dispenser (minister ordinarius) of the sacrament, the deacon is by virtue of his order the extraordinary minister (minister extraordinarius), yet he may not administer the sacrament except ex delegatione, i.e. with the permission of the bishop or priest. As has already been mentioned above, the deacons were accustomed in the Early Church to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who were absent from Divine service, as well as to present the Chalice to the laity during the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries (cf. Cyprian, De lapsis, nn. 17, 25), and this practice was observed until Communion under both kinds was discontinued. In St, Thomas' time (III:82:3), the deacons were allowed to administer only the Chalice to the laity, and in case of necessity the Sacred Host also, at the bidding of the bishop or priest. After the Communion of the laity under the species of wine had been abolished, the deacon's powers were more and more restricted. According to a decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (25 Feb., 1777), still in force, the deacon is to administer Holy Communion only in case of necessity and with the approval of his bishop or his pastor. (Cf. Funk, "Der Kommunionritus" in his "Kirchengeschichtl. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen", Paderborn, 1897, I, pp. 293 sqq.; see also "Theol. praktische Quartalschrift", Linz, 1906, LIX, 95 sqq.)

B. Method of Administration

As to the administration, the circumstances of time, place, and manner, and the ceremonies onlly will be referred to here, other details, as reservation, effects, etc., being considered elsewhere. (See EUCHARIST.) The ordinary time for reasonable cause justifies its administration outside Mass, provided it is within the time within which the celebration of Mass is permitted. There are some exceptions: viaticum can be given at any hour; it is lawful in cases of illness and of special indult. It may not be given except as Viaticum, from the conclusion of the exposition on Holy Thursday till Holy Saturday. Communion may be given in all churches and public, or semi-public, oratories that are not under interdict, and, according to a recent edict of the Congregation of Rites (8 May, 1907). even in domestic oratories at present. The faithful receive Communion under one kind, fermented bread being used in the Eastern, and unfermented in the Western Church, under both kinds. Each one should receive according to the Rite to which he belongs. When administering Holy Communion outside Mass a priest should always wear a surplice and stole, and there should be two lights burning on the altar. Communion may now be given at Masses said in black vestments.

It may be stated as a general fact, that down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice in Apostolic times is implied in I Cor., xi, 28 (see above), nor does the abbreviated reference to the "breaking of bread" in the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 46) prove anything to the contrary. The witness to the same effect for the sub-Apostolic and subsequent ages are too numerous, and the fact itself too clearly beyond dispute, to require that the evidence should be cited here. But side by side with the regular liturgical usage of Communion sub utraque, there existed from the earlist times the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone. This custom is exemplified (1) in the not infrequent practice of private domestic Communion, portion of the Eucharistic bread being brought by the faithful to their homes and there reserved for this purpose; (2) in the Communion of the sick, which was usually administered under the species of bread alone; (3) Communion of children which was usually given, even in the churches under the species of wine alone, but sometimes under the species of bread alone but sometimes under the species of bread alone; (4) in the Communion under the species of bread alone at the Mass of the Presanctified, and as an optional practice, in some churches on ordinary occasions. To these examples may be added (5) the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the consecrated bread in the Precious Blood and its administration per modum cibi. We will notice briefly the history of each of these divergent practices. (the stuff that's 'not' my personal opinion was copy & pasted from the Online Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Last but not least Cameron, instead of asking us who are only guestimating why there wasn't any wine ourselves (who have probably never attended that church, just ask the priest. He'll be able to let you know why there wasn't any wine for the parishoners.)

Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In an effort to include readers of all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (blahblah#@yahoo.com), December 15, 2004.

Dorian, it is OPTIONAL whether Communion is given under both kinds (bread and wine), and it is OPTIONAL for each Catholic attending Mass whether he receives it in the form of bread only, in the form of wine only, both, or neither. But it is MANDATORY that both kinds must be consecrated, even if there is only a thimbleful of wine available for the priest alone to consume after consecrating it. If a priest had run right out of wine he could buy or beg some, it doesn’t HAVE to come from anywhere special, as long as it’s wine made from grapes.

I think it would rarely if ever happen that someone who had open sores in his mouth or a contagious disease would be so thoughtless and uncharitable as to choose to receive from the chalice. I have certainly never observed it, and I always refrain from taking the chalice if I have a cold, flu, cold sore etc.

I’m sorry that you thought I was telling you what to do or think. I do realize that YOU know that the wine once consecrated is Christ’s blood, but others reading this might be confused about what Catholics believe if they saw it described as merely “wine”, rather than “in the form of wine”.

“the practice of the intinctio panis, i.e. the dipping of the consecrated bread in the Precious Blood and its administration per modum cibi.” refers to the priest or communion minister dipping the Host into the chalice and then putting it on the communicant’s tongue. Not to communicants taking the Host and then dipping it in the chalice themselves, which has never been sanctioned. Yes, to my horror, I have observed people doing this until recently in my own parish. It was always officially discouraged, but in some places a blind eye was turned by those who should have nipped it in the bud. In the last couple of years the Church has concentrated harder on stamping out abuses of the Eucharist such as this. But what Cameron describes is indeed puzzling.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 16, 2004.