 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 12:41 am |
|
Rick,
In Catholic parishes where the host (bread) is only served in the Eucharist, is that host previously dipped into wine or does it have the properties of wine within it? I ask this because it bothers me somewhat that both elements, bread and wine, are not offered in all Catholic parishes. The Catholic faith teaches John 6 as the Holy Eucharist being that of the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And Christ himself repeatedly said in this chapter that one must "eat of his flesh, and drink His blood, in order to have life." His blood is as significant as His flesh. Both were offered up for our salvation at Calvary. Why shouldn't it always be imperative that both species, bread and wine, which are figurative of Jesus flesh and blood, be offered at every Mass? And wouldn't this be holding true to form, which Catholic teaching is very explicit about? For example, if one is not baptized with the Trinitarian formula, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" then that Baptism is not recognized by the Church. And rightly so. So shouldn't Catholic teaching also be consistent when it comes to partaking of the Holy Eucharist in Mass? Jesus gave His disciples at the Last Supper, both species, both bread and wine. Should we not always imitate, as long as it is in our power to do so, our Lord Jesus' example?
I appreciate your comments as always, and look forward to learning more about this Blessed Sacrament of the Church.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 01:15 am |
|
Darlene wrote: In Catholic parishes where the host (bread) is only served in the Eucharist, is that host previously dipped into wine or does it have the properties of wine within it?
No.
I ask this because it bothers me somewhat that both elements, bread and wine, are not offered in all Catholic parishes.
The Church teaches us that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus are present, whole and entire, in both the Consecrated Bread and the Consecrated Wine. The priest must consume both the Body and the Blood, but others are free to receive only the host or only from the cup.
Parishes are encouraged to offer the Eucharist as both Bread and Wine so that the symbolism of Christ's Eucharist may be more complete, but those who choose to receive only the Bread or the Wine, or those prevented from receiving one or the other due to allergies, alcoholism, or medication, still receive the complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. This teaching is the result of various heresies over the years that taught that both were required, or that either the bread alone or the wine alone were enough even for the priest.
Both bread and wine must be consecrated or the mass is invalid, and the principal celebrant at the mass must receive both Body and Blood or the mass is illicit. This completes the sacrifice.
Other priests (concelebrants) and members of the congregation are not required to take both the Body and the Blood.
By the way, Church law in the Latin Rite requires that the host be made only of wheat and water. No other additives are permitted. The wine must be pressed from grapes, the natural fruit of the vine with no chemical additives. Wine made from other fruits, or unfermented grape juice, are not permitted. Mustum, a special low-alcohol wine, is permitted with a dispensation for alcoholic priests, who may also receive the Body and Blood together through intinction. The principal celebrant must always receive both the Body and the Blood.
(Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches allow bread with yeast, or even honey, salt, and other ingredients. This is not permitted in the Latin Church. Some Eastern Churches also require that the bread and wine be mixed and distributed with a golden spoon for the Eucharist to be valid.)
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 02:13 am |
|
Rick,
Thanks for your speedy response. I understand that in certain cases, such as you mentioned with regard to allergies, etc., that one would not take one of the species because of the health risk. However, shouldn't both species always be available for the celebrants to take, even if all celebrants don't choose to partake of the wine? And what if someone is allergic to the host, shouldn't the wine be available to them so that they can still partake of the Eucharist? Are there parishes that only offer wine at the Eucharist and not the bread (host)?
I can't explain it but this just doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps it is because of my recent deeper appreciation of the Holy Eucharist. I think both species should always be available to the celebrants, whether all celebrants take both or not. This is a proper and reverant way of imitating our Lord Jesus' example.
Please don't be irritated at my insistance here. This is something I am coming to feel very strongly about and I want to be able to partake of both species. At the parish I attend, both wine and bread are offered at the weekday Masses. However, I don't think that is the case on Sat. or Sunday.
Could another reason be that wine isn't always offered, (or at least I am assuming this) because children below drinking age are celebrants? But then the parents could caution them not to drink the wine. Or could another reason be because buying wine for the whole parish, for every Mass, could be too much of an expense? And not all parishes have the necessary funds?
Thanks for your help.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31st, 2007 10:39 am |
|
Darlene wrote: Thanks for your speedy response. I understand that in certain cases, such as you mentioned with regard to allergies, etc., that one would not take one of the species because of the health risk. However, shouldn't both species always be available for the celebrants to take, even if all celebrants don't choose to partake of the wine?
"Celebrants" are priests. The primary priest who celebrates the mass is known as the "prinipal celebrant". Any additional priests who celebrate with him are known as "concelebrants". Yes, the wine must always be available to all priests who celebrate the mass. Altar ministers such as acolytes, lectors, etc., and the people in the congregation are not "celebrants". We participate in the mass; we do not celebrate it.
And what if someone is allergic to the host, shouldn't the wine be available to them so that they can still partake of the Eucharist?
The current rules of the Church say that both the Precious Body and Precious Blood should be provided unless pastoral reasons dictate otherwise. For example, the use of the cup may be suspended during a flu outbreak. However it is up to the bishop of the diocese to establish guidelines, and the pastor to put them into effect, based on the situation in the local diocese and parish.
Are there parishes that only offer wine at the Eucharist and not the bread (host)?
Not to my knowledge, but it is possible.
I can't explain it but this just doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps it is because of my recent deeper appreciation of the Holy Eucharist. I think both species should always be available to the celebrants, whether all celebrants take both or not. This is a proper and reverant way of imitating our Lord Jesus' example.
Again, I think you are using the term "celebrant" to indicate the people attending the mass rather than the priest(s), which is an incorrect usage.
I agree that communion under both species should always be made available, but that is not my call or yours. It is up to the bishop and the pastor to determine what is proper in that diocese and that parish.
Please don't be irritated at my insistance here. This is something I am coming to feel very strongly about and I want to be able to partake of both species. At the parish I attend, both wine and bread are offered at the weekday Masses. However, I don't think that is the case on Sat. or Sunday.
Ask. Even if they do not customarily make the Precious Blood available at Sunday liturgies, they may do so (or may be willing to do so) at the mass at which you are accepted into the Church.
Could another reason be that wine isn't always offered, (or at least I am assuming this) because children below drinking age are celebrants? But then the parents could caution them not to drink the wine.
Since a "celebrant" is a priest, underage children are never celebrants, but they may indeed take from the cup. It is up to the parents and the laws in each jurisdiction. I am not aware of any place where it might be illegal for a child to take a small sip of wine, but in my parish most don't because their parents have advised them otherwise, or because they don't like the taste.
Or could another reason be because buying wine for the whole parish, for every Mass, could be too much of an expense? And not all parishes have the necessary funds?
Yes, that may well be a factor. Also, the parish would have to purchase proper cups for distribution of the Eucharist, and cups made of "noble material" like gold or silver can be very expensive.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 07:56 pm |
|
Rick,
Thanks again for your response. Yes, I was misusing the term "celebrants." I actually meant the people in the congregation. How is it that only the priests are celebrants and everyone else partaking of the Eucharist is merely participating in it? Can you elaborate a bit on this distinction? Of course you must already know that in Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalist Churches, everyone is considered to be celebrating The Lord's Supper. In other words, there is no distinction between pastor and congregation. Although, now that I really think about it, I don't ever recall any Protestant pastor using the word "celebrate" regarding The Lord's Supper. Usually they say something along the line of, "Today we will be taking Communion," or "Today we will be taking The Lord's Supper." In fact, I have never heard the word "Eucharist" used in any Protestant church I have attended. However, my husband who was formerly an Episcopalian, has said that they use the word "Eucharist."
Anyhow, does your parish offer both wine and bread at every Mass?
Thanks for helping me to work through with a better understanding of this very necessary sacrament of the Church.
God Bless You,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 08:54 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: How is it that only the priests are celebrants and everyone else partaking of the Eucharist is merely participating in it? Can you elaborate a bit on this distinction?
The priest, by virtue of his ordination, stands in the place of Christ our High Priest. In Jewish Law, only the High Priest could offer the most important sacrifices; other priests could offer lesser sacrifices and participate in other ways.
By standing in for Christ, our priest is the one who guides the celebration, and so he is officially called the "celebrant". The mass can take place without us; it cannot take place without a priest. He is the one who presents our offering to God and, through his ordination and the words of consecration, makes Jesus present to us. So there is a distinction made, just as their was between the High Priest and the other Jewish priests. Only the priest can make our offering (the Lamb of God) present on the altar.
Of course you must already know that in Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalist Churches, everyone is considered to be celebrating The Lord's Supper. In other words, there is no distinction between pastor and congregation.
Quite simply because there is no distinction. The pastor is not ordained in the Catholic sense. He has gone to school, but so have I, and so have many others. The only real distinction between the preacher and the congregation in most Protestant churches is that the preacher gets a paycheck.
Although, now that I really think about it, I don't ever recall any Protestant pastor using the word "celebrate" regarding The Lord's Supper.
They don't believe in the Real Presence, so what is there to celebrate? They believe the action of Jesus was a single event 2000 years ago. We believe it is an ongoing event made real at every mass, and so we celebrate that "Christ has died, Christ is risen, [and] Christ will come again".
In fact, I have never heard the word "Eucharist" used in any Protestant church I have attended. However, my husband who was formerly an Episcopalian, has said that they use the word "Eucharist."
Because it isn't. It's like celebrating Thanksgiving alone with a peanut butter sandwich. The Real Thing (and I don't mean Coca-Cola) just isn't there. You can tell by the way they "do the dishes" afterwards. Anglicans and Episcopalians use the word, but they still don't believe in the Real Presence as we do, and their priests are not properly ordained to stand in the place of Christ. They do not have valid sacraments.
Anyhow, does your parish offer both wine and bread at every Mass?
Yes, and to the best of my knowledge, so does every other parish in my diocese except the one offering the Latin mass.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 341 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 10:30 pm |
|
| Even though the mass can be celebrated without us, I always like the old way of saying that we assist at mass, meaning we are there doing something important and helping the job get done. "attending" just doesn't sound very important
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 10:39 pm |
|
Maybe if I throw this prompt out there someone will remember the specifics. I know I read this somewhere...
There's a verse in Scripture which was changed a little bit by [Protestants?]. I tried to find it, but couldn't remember where I read this, that the passage says something about 'the body and the blood' or 'the bread and the wine' but it actually doesn't say "and" but the original language says "or." In other words, when you eat the bread OR drink the cup, not AND drink the cup.
I'm probably sounding incomprehensible, but I hope someone will remember that passage and what it is I'm talking about!
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 11:05 pm |
|
mrsbmoo wrote: Even though the mass can be celebrated without us, I always like the old way of saying that we assist at mass, meaning we are there doing something important and helping the job get done. "attending" just doesn't sound very important
It used to be common for priests to celebrate private masses; now it is actively discouraged, and only permitted in extreme circumstances.
When I indicated that we were not essential to the sacrifice, I meant that each of us individually is not required to be there. Except in extreme circumstances, at least one member of the faithful must be present along with the priest.
Current terminology is that we "participate" in the mass. We are important to the celebration, but each of us individually is not essential. That's why we say we can receive the Eucharist at mass only if we "fully participate".
The priest (meaning our priest) is not essential either. A priest is required and so is a member of the faithful for there to be a true celebration of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ is the only really essential party to the celebration.
Think of it this way. There can't be a birthday party without the person celebrating their birthday. He can have a party without anyone else, but it would certainly not be much of a celebration.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 1st, 2007 11:54 pm |
|
mrsbmoo wrote:
Even though the mass can be celebrated without us, I always like the old way of saying that we assist at mass, meaning we are there doing something important and helping the job get done. "Attending" just doesn't sound very important.
Unfortunately, Becky, this interpretation is not linguistically correct. For instance, asistir, in Spanish, means “attend.” Spanish is descended, as you know, from Latin. The English use of “assist” for “attend” also comes from the Latin because it is a Catholic usage and Latin is the official language of the Church. So it is cognate, even if I haven’t learned how to conjugate in Latin and act like an expert.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 855 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 12:44 pm |
|
I am wondering if I will receive the wine when I am brought in on Saturday. I am nervous about trying to finish the bread that quick, I sort of want to let it sit and take my time (not excesssivlely) but I dont want to rush it down to get to the wine. Any recommendation for my first time. I take it I do not need to receive both as some sort of rule for my first?
I kind of want to get used to the bread before jumping into the wine (sorry for not saying body and blood) but then again part of me wants to get the fullest possible experience I possibly can.
Is there a recommended way of receiving or chewing not chewing, letting dissolve. I would think you should not take the blood until finished with the bread?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 02:43 pm |
|
brian wrote: Is there a recommended way of receiving or chewing not chewing, letting dissolve. I would think you should not take the blood until finished with the bread?
You will be offered both bread and wine if it is customary to receive under both species in your parish. I prefer not to "rush" swallowing the host, but usually still have some of it in my mouth when I receive the wine. That does mean that when I say "Amen" when I receive the cup, it is seldom audible as I do not want any of the host to come out of my mouth.
In our RCIA program, we always allow the participants to taste the unconsecrated host and wine ahead of time so they know what to expect. We do the same for children when they practice for their first communion.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 09:56 pm |
|
Rick or David,
Would it be wrong or inappropriate to mention to the priest in my parish that I would like to attend a Mass where both bread and wine are served, when I partake of the Eucharist for the first time? I know for certain that option exists on weekday Masses.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 11:33 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: Would it be wrong or inappropriate to mention to the priest in my parish that I would like to attend a Mass where both bread and wine are served, when I partake of the Eucharist for the first time? I know for certain that option exists on weekday Masses.
No. Ask him about it. Even if the Eucharist is not normally provided under both species, he can make an exception. Frequently at weddings, the newlyweds will receive the Precious Body and Precious Blood even though the rest of the congregation receives only in the form of bread.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 11:12 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
